Jump to content

The probability field in effects


DavidW

Recommended Posts

On 2/14/2019 at 10:12 AM, Jarno Mikkola said:

Nope.

1 is still one, even if you F it with a *10^x

I think it's fairly clear that InKal was not saying that the probability that p, given p, is something other than 1:1. If I were to flip a coin, get heads, and ask: 'what are the chances of that result?', the most appropriate answer would be '~50%'. 

Sure, you can point to the result and say, 'no, it's 100%' and, in a sense, you wouldn't be wrong. But, what has happened is that the question has been modified and that modified question has been answered.

Edited by Grammarsalad
Link to comment
9 hours ago, DavidW said:

Though in any case there is absolutely no good reason to think that the chance of life in the universe is that low.

Yeah, I'm curious where these probabilities come from. Nobody has found a way to take measurements from other possible worlds, have they? There is a(t least one) probabilistic argument for the existence of God that relies on the improbability of life. The idea is that, given that the probability of life is so low, and given that there is, in fact, life, it is more likely than not that some supernatural Being intervened to create life--and thus, it is more likely than not that such a Being exists

 

Edit: of course, as Kant pointed out, such an argument, even if it is successful, doesn't actually get us to God. Maybe this being is just an alien Horror best described by Lovecraft. The only way to get to God is by some kind of ontological argument, and, well, that route is not promising...

Edited by Grammarsalad
Link to comment

"Yeah, I'm curious where these probabilities come from."

 

Me too. Even though I do not have a dog in this fight, it seems both sides of the debate are arguing over the probability of a process terminating in life without specifying, or really having any concrete idea about, what that process would be. The problem with mumbling about molecules banging around and forming stuff, quite apart from whether the probability parameters are acceptable instead of say, being pulled out of thin air, is that it is not even a theory. We simply do not have acceptable theory for abiogenesis and so we have no, and cannot have any, idea how probable it is.

 

"The only way to get to God is by some kind of ontological argument, and, well, that route is not promising... "

 

Whether the ontological is problematic or not (and I actually do agree that it is, although probably not for the same reasons), the idea that it is the only way to God is false as Plato and Aristotle, convinced theists, have shown -- and western philosophy is basically a series of footnotes on those two. Now, of course you can try to argue that cosmological arguments like Aristotle's or Plotinus' or St. Thomas Aquinas' or Leibniz's are also problematic, but that is a distinct objection.

Link to comment
On 2/14/2019 at 4:23 PM, CamDawg said:

...and that, kids, is why we use scientific notation.

On 2/14/2019 at 5:12 PM, Jarno Mikkola said:

Nope.

1 is still one, even if you F it with a *10^x

On 2/20/2019 at 6:54 PM, Grammarsalad said:

I think it's fairly clear that InKal was not ...

 

Thing is, I wasn't talking about what InKal was... exactly. I was talking about CamDawg's noted. Even if I didn't exactly quote him, the notion of math being reversive. Equations will always equate, if you don't make one of the great mistakes, like divide with (a possible )zero, etc. 

 

Now, yes, in the other quote I was talking about what InKal said. I hope my point was clear there.

On 2/21/2019 at 9:38 AM, Grammarsalad said:

Yeah, I'm curious where these probabilities come from. Nobody has found a way to take measurements from other possible worlds, have they? There is a(t least one) probabilistic argument for the existence of God that relies on the improbability of life. The idea is that, given that the probability of life is so low, and given that there is, in fact, life, it is more likely than not that some supernatural Being intervened to create life--and thus, it is more likely than not that such a Being exists ..(had to out quote this, a bit, to get more room).

 

This is interesting to answer to... I'll admit that.

Fun fact, the so-called parameters set in stone are false as the so-called god of the ancients. Because we don't know the exact parameters that existed in the pre-history, we cannot know them. So we predict them... or actually more close, make badly educated guesses. One being the atmospheric composition. Side- effect, being that as life recycles the atmosphere, it's composition changes, and as it does... if there was no life on earth, the average temperature today would be just off the +290 °C*, or 550 degrees Fahrenheit. This is because of the earth's atmosphere would consist of mostly(+90%) of carbon dioxide and relative compounds. Just like all the other near-Earth planets. Just saying.

*Yes, I have a citation for this data.

The fun thing about the conceptual gods is, that they exist, just like the Superman or Spiderman. Are they any more real, that those, doesn't matter, they exist. So rather than we require them to exist, they surely need us, more than we ever need them.

Link to comment

Heh, I was actually thinking of Aristotle and his discussion of fatalism and naval battles. And Jarno is, I think, teasing out the difference between what we might call ' metaphysical' vs ' epistemic' possibility, which I think is relevant to the Aristotle conversation (lol, which I won't get into because, among other things, I feel like like this conversation is detailing this thread. At the same time, it felt rude to say nothing...I'm definitely not going to get into a 'my favorite philosopher is better than your favorite philosopher' discussion except to say that Kant rules; the ancients drool. :p)

 

More on topic: @CamDawg will this ordering issue and/or auto pause issue be fixed eventually? Is it fixable?

Link to comment
Guest E.T.

There might well be or have been non-Earth bacterial life in the solar system alone, so that there is such life in the entire universe is basically 1.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...