Probability



22032013, 01:05 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 10:32 AM)Vosur Wrote:(22032013 04:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The three marble example is not an example of frequency probability but rather it is an example of classical probability.You don't say. Classical probability is the interpretation that justifies the claim made by Chas that probabilities are calculated. The problem with the classical interpretation is that sometimes you can get more than one answer which is why it lost out to frequentism. Classical still has a place however, were I to design a new casino game, I would do it with classical probability and them use a computer program to run simulations to verify the calculated probabilities with frequentism. 

22032013, 01:07 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 08:06 AM)TheJackal Wrote:(22032013 04:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The three marble example is not an example of frequency probability but rather it is an example of classical probability. Classical probability, admittedly, has some serious flaws. However, those flaws do not manifest themselves in the simple 3 marble example.If you are referring to the probability of life, it's meaningless. Especially in dealing with infinite times scales, and infinite vastness of existence.. This Universe in itself could simply just be 1 of an infinite number of other universes to where life did arise. In these circumstances, probability becomes utterly meaningless and not something you can possibly measure, and even becomes inevitable consequence of the system. And dealing with chaotic systems to which are inherently unpredictable on large scales and times scales, probability arguments again really have no real world relevancy here.. Probability arguments are best used in where predictability is within predictable systems and situations such as particle physics in nuclear engineering.. But if anyone tries to use the probability argument against the probability of life, it only shows how much bs arm chair pseudoscience and mathematics they can make up and put into meaningless argument. Nobody has ever observed a multi verse or infinite time scales so it is irrational and illogical to believe in those things.....right BeardedDude? 

22032013, 01:31 PM




Re: Probability
To believe they exist? Yes. To look for evidence for or to test? No.


3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post 
22032013, 03:42 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 01:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:We have a method called science. Which uses mathematics, which mathematics is the language of nature. Predictions are made through the mathematics, which hasnt let us down as of yet. Just like anything in science, nothing is 100% true, yet we can use probability to determine the likelihood of something. The multiverse hypothesis, no matter how weird it seems, has mathematics supporting it. This doesnt make it true, but plausible. Yet if we take the God hypothesis, we have nothing to base it on. So, probability of a multiverse, is still better then the God hypothesis.(22032013 08:06 AM)TheJackal Wrote: If you are referring to the probability of life, it's meaningless. Especially in dealing with infinite times scales, and infinite vastness of existence.. This Universe in itself could simply just be 1 of an infinite number of other universes to where life did arise. In these circumstances, probability becomes utterly meaningless and not something you can possibly measure, and even becomes inevitable consequence of the system. And dealing with chaotic systems to which are inherently unpredictable on large scales and times scales, probability arguments again really have no real world relevancy here.. Probability arguments are best used in where predictability is within predictable systems and situations such as particle physics in nuclear engineering.. But if anyone tries to use the probability argument against the probability of life, it only shows how much bs arm chair pseudoscience and mathematics they can make up and put into meaningless argument. Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly. 

22032013, 05:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 22032013 05:19 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)




RE: Probability
(22032013 03:42 PM)StorMFront Wrote:(22032013 01:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Nobody has ever observed a multi verse or infinite time scales so it is irrational and illogical to believe in those things.....right BeardedDude?We have a method called science. Which uses mathematics, which mathematics is the language of nature. Predictions are made through the mathematics, which hasnt let us down as of yet. Just like anything in science, nothing is 100% true, yet we can use probability to determine the likelihood of something. The multiverse hypothesis, no matter how weird it seems, has mathematics supporting it. This doesnt make it true, but plausible. Yet if we take the God hypothesis, we have nothing to base it on. So, probability of a multiverse, is still better then the God hypothesis. If math can describe infinite timelines and infinite universes then it can describe God. Write a mathematical description of yourself, then take that description so that it describes a being who knows one more fact, has one more ability, etc. Keep modifying that descripition ad infinitum. 

22032013, 05:24 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 05:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: If math can describe infinite timelines and infinite universes then it can describe God. Write a mathematical description of yourself, then take that description so that it describes a being who knows one more fact, has one more ability, etc. Keep modifying that descripition ad infinitum.At one time in History you would think so. And then, Physics discovered a lot about the universe that made the God Concept seem quaint. So...the apologists had to "Move the Goal Posts" sotospeak to a place where Math and Physics can't go: they describe God as being spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Pretty neat trick. 

1 user Likes Julius's post 
22032013, 05:35 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 01:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(22032013 10:32 AM)Vosur Wrote: You don't say. Frequentism is approximation. As the number of trials approaches infinity, the observed frequency approaches the probability. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 
22032013, 09:01 PM




RE: Probability
(22032013 05:24 PM)Julius Wrote:(22032013 05:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: If math can describe infinite timelines and infinite universes then it can describe God. Write a mathematical description of yourself, then take that description so that it describes a being who knows one more fact, has one more ability, etc. Keep modifying that descripition ad infinitum.At one time in History you would think so. And then, Physics discovered a lot about the universe that made the God Concept seem quaint. So...the apologists had to "Move the Goal Posts" sotospeak to a place where Math and Physics can't go: they describe God as being spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Let An be n number of things a being can do. Let Kn be n number of facts a being can know. Let Pn be n number of places a being can occupy. God = An+Kn+Pn where each n is infinite. You see you can use mathematics to describe anything. Just because a multi verse can be mathematically described isn't sufficient cause to believe it. 

23032013, 06:22 AM




Re: Probability
You didn't mathematically describe anything. You just wrote something down and gave variables names.


23032013, 07:38 AM




RE: Probability
Heywood,
With your mathematical description of God, do you intend to describe any properties for him that can be tested to see whether or not a creature with those properties exist? What properties can you think of that you know your God has that can be demonstrated, and how could you demonstrate them? Do you think he has some impact on the lives of human beings for example? Benjamin. Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)