Breaking the spell?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2015, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2015 01:57 PM by jockmcdock.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And how are you not contradicting yourself, when you say: "What is the probability that you were born? It was an unlikely event. One of your dad's other sperm could have won the race."

When you claim it as unlikely event, you're saying something about the probability.

The difference is between looking at things prospectively as opposed to retrospectively.

Let's take a simpler example. I have two fair dice. The chance that I throw a double 6 before I roll the dice is 1 in 36. It's an unlikely event. But, lo and behold, I do throw a double 6. What's the probability that I threw it? It's 1!!! if I could rewind the world by 5 minutes and I had to throw "again", I'd have a very good chance of not throwing a double 6.

You might want to consider the tense of the verbs. In the prospective situation, it is "throw"; in the retrospective situation, it's "threw".

I get the impression that you think the "rewind" scenario is always applicable (at least in terms of probability). It's not. We're stuck with what we got.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 01:45 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And how are you not contradicting yourself, when you say: "What is the probability that you were born? It was an unlikely event. One of your dad's other sperm could have won the race."

When you claim it as unlikely event, you're saying something about the probability.

The difference is between looking at things prospectively as opposed to retrospectively.

Let's take a simpler example. I have two fair dice. The chance that I throw a double 6 before I roll the dice is 1 in 36. It's an unlikely event. But, lo and behold, I do throw a double 6. What's the probability that I threw it? It's 1!!! if I could rewind the world by 5 minutes and I had to throw "again", I'd have a very good chance of not throwing a double 6.

You might want to consider the tense of the verbs. In the prospective situation, it is "throw"; in the retrospective situation, it's "threw".

I get the impression that you think the "rewind" scenario is always applicable. It's not. We're stuck with what we got.

Is your rewind scenario not applicable to the 6 you rolled as well? You just stated that if you could rewind by 5 minutes, that there's a very good chance you wouldn't have thrown a 6?

I'm only asking to think of the question as you did here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is your rewind scenario not applicable to the 6 you rolled as well? You just stated that if you could rewind by 5 minutes, that there's a very good chance you wouldn't have thrown a 6?

I'm only asking to think of the question as you did here.

No, the rewind scenario is not applicable. Even if it were, my chance of throwing a double 6 is still 1 in 36. Having thrown one in some non-existent future doesn't increase my chances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 02:05 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is your rewind scenario not applicable to the 6 you rolled as well? You just stated that if you could rewind by 5 minutes, that there's a very good chance you wouldn't have thrown a 6?

I'm only asking to think of the question as you did here.

No, the rewind scenario is not applicable. Even if it were, my chance of throwing a double 6 is still 1 in 36. Having thrown one in some non-existent future doesn't increase my chances.

Yet, you were able to say that if you were able to rewind 5 minutes, you'd have a very good chance of not throwing a 6 at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2015 02:29 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 01:45 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  The difference is between looking at things prospectively as opposed to retrospectively.

Let's take a simpler example. I have two fair dice. The chance that I throw a double 6 before I roll the dice is 1 in 36. It's an unlikely event. But, lo and behold, I do throw a double 6. What's the probability that I threw it? It's 1!!! if I could rewind the world by 5 minutes and I had to throw "again", I'd have a very good chance of not throwing a double 6.

You might want to consider the tense of the verbs. In the prospective situation, it is "throw"; in the retrospective situation, it's "threw".

I get the impression that you think the "rewind" scenario is always applicable. It's not. We're stuck with what we got.

Is your rewind scenario not applicable to the 6 you rolled as well? You just stated that if you could rewind by 5 minutes, that there's a very good chance you wouldn't have thrown a 6?

I'm only asking to think of the question as you did here.

What you're missing is that the specific spectrum of life that we have now (including a sentient species known as "man") is no more unlikely than any specific spectrum of life. If someone had predicted a million years ago [edit: I meant to say a billion -- some form of man may have already existed a million years ago] that evolution would produce mankind, then it would be uncanny and amazing and all that other stuff that it actually turned out that way. But it was guaranteed that it would turn out some way, and this is the way we got. It's no more uncanny or amazing than any other specific outcome would have been -- if that specific outcome had been predicted. But nothing was predicted. A process happened, and it produced a result. You can't take that result and be amazed at how unlikely it was. You simply cannot apply probability to something that has already happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
24-04-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 02:05 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  No, the rewind scenario is not applicable. Even if it were, my chance of throwing a double 6 is still 1 in 36. Having thrown one in some non-existent future doesn't increase my chances.

Yet, you were able to say that if you were able to rewind 5 minutes, you'd have a very good chance of not throwing a 6 at all?

Actually it was a double 6.

Yes, if i were able to go back 5 minutes to re-roll the dice, my chance of a double 6 is still 1 in 36.

I don't see the problem. Are you saying everything is predetermined? if i can rewind my throw 100 times, will I get 100 double 6's?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
What are the odds?

In a tiny neighborhood of about a dozen homes, there are four households, including mine, that the husbands all share the same first name. Of those four households, the wives of three of them all have the same first name. The one where the wife's first name is different happens to be my particular household. But, wait! There is more!... My wife, who doesn't share the same first name as the other three wives of the husbands that share my name, just happens to have been born on the same exact day (day, month, year) as one of those three wives.

Uncanny!!

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2015 02:32 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 02:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But it was guaranteed that it would turn out some way, and this is the way we got.

This is start. It was guaranteed that it would turn out some way? But not guarnteed that it would be be, conscious life, rational, moral, creative agents, aware of their existence, capable of uncovering how they came to be?

It could have all just as likely turned out to be a bunch of shrubs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 02:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What you're missing is that the specific spectrum of life that we have now (including a sentient species known as "man") is no more unlikely than any specific spectrum of life. If someone had predicted a million years ago that evolution would produce mankind, then it would be uncanny and amazing and all that other stuff that it actually turned out that way. But it was guaranteed that it would turn out some way, and this is the way we got. It's no more uncanny or amazing than any other specific outcome would have been -- if that specific outcome had been predicted. But nothing was predicted. A process happened, and it produced a result. You can't take that result and be amazed at how unlikely it was. You simply cannot apply probability to something that has already happened.

Nicely said. I've had the cosmological constants argument, mainly from my JW sister and family. Very brief and not entirely accurate summary: "if the force of gravity or the speed of light were not what they are, we would not be here. Therefore God". To which i reply "Absolutely. But, then there could be 8-legged turtles with 5 metre long necks saying 'if the force of gravity or the speed of light were not what they are, we would not be here. Therefore Turtle God'"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 02:38 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2015 04:31 PM by jockmcdock.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(24-04-2015 02:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 02:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But it was guaranteed that it would turn out some way, and this is the way we got.

This is start. It was guaranteed that it would turn out some way? But not guarnteed that it would be be, conscious life, rational, moral, creative agents, aware of their existence, capable of uncovering how they came to be?

It could have all just as likely turned out to be a bunch of shrubs?

There's not even a guarantee of life. It could still be primordial soup. We wouldn't be here to discuss it.

Edit: Did i actually use the word "hear" instead of "here". Somebody kick me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: