Intelligent Design Debunked: Difference between real, imaginary & transcendent dice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2012, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 09:18 PM by lightninlives.)
Intelligent Design Debunked: Difference between real, imaginary & transcendent dice
http://theunconverted.com/the-difference...ntal-dice/

The answer: Nothing!

Would love your thoughts on this clever analogy invented by Tracie from The Atheist Experience.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lightninlives's post
01-10-2012, 09:29 AM
RE: Trick question: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent
[Image: Atrapitis.gif]

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 10:00 AM
what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
Aww Sad I thought it was gonna be something about imaginary numbers and transcendental numbers an... an... dice n' shit. Sadcryface2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 07:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
Trick question: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
(01-10-2012 09:26 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  http://theunconverted.com/the-difference...ntal-dice/

The answer: Nothing!

Would love your thoughts on this clever analogy invented by Tracie from The Atheist Experience.

That is a fantastic example. I wish she had gone a bit more into the math and actual probabilites of 1 of the dice rolls, both individually, and colectively, and how HIGH they were, but it STILL actually happened. AFTER it happened, the probability is 1.0. So ID betrays ignorance of Baysean Statisics, and Probability Theory, entirely. Thanks for that !!
The take-away is also : very extremely, highly improbable events, happen ALL THE TIME, in fact are extremely common.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-10-2012, 12:43 PM
RE: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
She wasn't really trying to calculate the the odds of rolling that set of values, but also the odds of each die landing in that place on the table, though they only barely mentioned that in the video. It would have been an even more compelling demonstration if every die were a different color, and they asked questions like "what are the odds that this blue die would roll a three and land here, exactly 7/16 of an inch from the the red die that rolled a one and 1 7/8 inches from this purple die that rolled a six..."

If you take into account the pattern on the table, and that each die lands in its own specific spot in that pattern, and if you want to take it down into really tiny scale like micrometers or something small like that, the odds get to be incalculably gigantic (at least for my little brain).

Of course, as already mentioned, after it's been rolled, the odds of it happening the way it did are 1:1.

As for the rest of that video, Tracie had 3 jars. One full of actual dice, one that was empty and contained "imaginary dice" and one that only appeared to be empty but actually contained real, actual, transcendental supernatural dice. It's been forever and a day since I saw the whole thing, but somewhere in the part not shown in the short clip linked above, she made some comparison about how those two jars were functionally the same - there is no difference between an empty jar containing imaginary dice and a full jar containing supernatural dice. Since neither set of dice can be detected by any means known to man, no matter how often she shakes them and rolls them, she'll never know the outcome of those two sets of dice, hence they are exactly the same to her, and to every other human. Now, she knows one of the jars is empty because she only has imaginary dice in there. Pretend. Make-believe. She claims the other jar is not empty but functionally it is the same as the empty one. Ergo, supernatural = imaginary.

It was an interesting discussion, if I recall correctly.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
01-10-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
(01-10-2012 12:43 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  She wasn't really trying to calculate the the odds of rolling that set of values, but also the odds of each die landing in that place on the table, though they only barely mentioned that in the video. It would have been an even more compelling demonstration if every die were a different color, and they asked questions like "what are the odds that this blue die would roll a three and land here, exactly 7/16 of an inch from the the red die that rolled a one and 1 7/8 inches from this purple die that rolled a six..."

If you take into account the pattern on the table, and that each die lands in its own specific spot in that pattern, and if you want to take it down into really tiny scale like micrometers or something small like that, the odds get to be incalculably gigantic (at least for my little brain).

Of course, as already mentioned, after it's been rolled, the odds of it happening the way it did are 1:1.

As for the rest of that video, Tracie had 3 jars. One full of actual dice, one that was empty and contained "imaginary dice" and one that only appeared to be empty but actually contained real, actual, transcendental supernatural dice. It's been forever and a day since I saw the whole thing, but somewhere in the part not shown in the short clip linked above, she made some comparison about how those two jars were functionally the same - there is no difference between an empty jar containing imaginary dice and a full jar containing supernatural dice. Since neither set of dice can be detected by any means known to man, no matter how often she shakes them and rolls them, she'll never know the outcome of those two sets of dice, hence they are exactly the same to her, and to every other human. Now, she knows one of the jars is empty because she only has imaginary dice in there. Pretend. Make-believe. She claims the other jar is not empty but functionally it is the same as the empty one. Ergo, supernatural = imaginary.

It was an interesting discussion, if I recall correctly.

Exactly right. That's the main takeaway for me and what I tried to illustrate with my little graphic that I made.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 11:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Trick question: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
So what I wished they had actually calculated, I did for us. Not using aseptic's insightful contribution, which would raise the number to an astronomically higher number, or using many, many more dice, which is also very easy, I decided to work out some numbers, so they would be here for the Resource thread, and debunking ID nonsense.

One of the claims of Intelligent Design, is that the complex reactions which produced functioning cells with DNA, and RNA are just so highly improbable, that they would require the intervention of a divine designer.

So let's take a look at improbable events, and exactly what that really means.

With 17 pairs of dice, (34 die), which could very easily be raised to thousands of dice, using actual physical dice, or billions, of dice in a super-computer simulation, (which would be a legitimate analogy, as there were at least that number of reactions happening in the "primordial soup".)

Briefly, each of the die has 6 sides, thus the probability that any one side, in any 1 die comes up is 1/6. For two die, any combo of the two coming up is 1/12. Thus the 34 is
6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6x6.

The probability of 1 observed outcome, from 1 throw of the 34 dice, seen on a table top is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000

Thus without any intervention, we would witness an event which had a probability of 1/286 septillion.

1 septillion is about 10 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is around 600 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, and are able to toss the dice.

The number of times an event with this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, by one person, 25 times per minute, (which is a VERY VERY low estimate of reactions in the "soup"), for 4 billion years, (the cooled Earth, with an ocean,) is : 52 quadrillion, or actually 52,560,000,000,000,000, or 13,140,000 times per year, or 36,000 times per day, or 250 times per minute.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a large number of "tossing machines" (or people) were constructed/used. The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine, or tosser. Thus there could be many orders of more dice.

To the probability equation, we could add a higher order of precision, resulting in a much lower probability, which would take into account the precise position of each of the die, as they fall, and come to rest on the table.

Thus, in addition to the numbers above, we could have an astronomically higher frequency of tosses x astronomically higher improbability due to many more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk. So a rather "wimpy" re-estimate, using the additional factors, => 1000 more dice, (not raised to factorial product, which if computed, would result in a number higher than the highest numbers imaginable, ... a google, 10^100, and googleplex [(10^10)^100], x 1000 more position factor precision points, (which was ignored in the example, and just set to "1"), x 100 more throws = 1,000,000 x 100 = 100,000,000 x (all the above number categories).

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but could and likely did happen so often, that "commonplace", does not describe them, and that they require no intervention, whatsoever, human, or divine.
Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-10-2012, 07:13 AM
Trick question: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent dice?
That's some brilliant perspective right there. I love this example.

...it would rather be a man... [who] plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: Trick question: what's the difference between imaginary dice and transcendent...
(02-10-2012 12:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So what I wished they had actually calculated, I did for us. Not using aseptic's insightful contribution, which would raise the number to an astronomically higher number, or using many, many more dice, which is also very easy, I decided to work out some numbers, so they would be here for the Resource thread, and debunking ID nonsense.

With 17 pairs of dice, 34 die : ((which could very easily be raised to thousands, (physically), or millions, or billions, or whatever, in a super-computer simulation, which would be legit, as there were at least that number, (vastly MORE actually), of reactions happening in the primordial soup)) :

1. The probability of any 1 outcome, of 1 dice throw, coming up as seen on the desk is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000

So, randomly, without any divine intervention, or any intervention AT ALL, we could witness an event, on the desk, which had a probability of 1/286 septillion. 1 septillion is about 10 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is 600 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, or are able to toss the dice.

2. The number of times an event of this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, 3 times per minute, for 13.7 billion years, (the present age of the universe), is : 64 quintillion, or actually 64,806,479,999,999,992, or 4,730,400 times per year, or 12,960 times per day.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a (very) large number of "tossing machines" were constructed, thus a "non-designed" result from the tosses would be astronomically higher, depending on how many machines could be constructed. (Note :The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine).

Multiply that by many orders of more dice, x the "position precision" on the desk.
Thus we have an astronomically higher frequency x astronomically higher improbability due to more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk. Very wimpy re-estimate = 1000 more dice, (not even raised to factorial product, which if computed, would result in a number higher than the highest numbers imaginable, ... a google, 10^100, and googleplex, [10^10)^100] ) x 1000 more position factor precision points x 100 more throws = 1,000,000 x 100 = 100,000,000 x (all the above numbers).

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but utterly beyond any notion of "commonplace", and require no intervention, whatsoever.
Tongue

Thanks again lightninlives.

Freakin' love it!

This speaks to the not-so-subtle challenge modern day society faces regarding mathematical illiteracy.

Folks like us can truly appreciate what the math tells us about reality, but the grand majority of people living today do not have the mental tools/skills needed to fully process this information and leverage it to inform their view of objective reality.

And it doesn't just impact perspective on reality. It impacts public policy and private financial decision-making as well.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 05:20 AM
RE: Intelligent Design Debunked:
Ehem, Bucky, it's "googol".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: