Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
I understand probability very well, thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 12:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand probability very well, thank you.

Care to demonstrate? Probability is far less intuitive than statistics.

You're on Let's Make A Deal, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I love probability problems. Big Grin

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-08-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 12:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand probability very well, thank you.

I'd say that proposition has a fairly low probability, actually.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2015, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 01:26 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 01:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 12:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand probability very well, thank you.

Care to demonstrate? Probability is far less intuitive than statistics.

You're on Let's Make A Deal, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I love probability problems. Big Grin

I've read the explanation to the 'Monty Hall' game. Not quit grokking it though.

Is the out come/probability the way it is BECAUSE the show host/presenter knows the distribution of the prizes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 01:51 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 01:22 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 01:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Care to demonstrate? Probability is far less intuitive than statistics.

You're on Let's Make A Deal, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I love probability problems. Big Grin

I've read the explanation to the 'Monty Hall' game. Not quit grokking it though.

Is the out come/probability the way it is BECAUSE the show host/presenter knows the distribution of the prizes?

No, it's not because the host knows. Basically it boils down to the fact that you get to choose two doors over only choosing one.

So if you stick to your original pick, your 1 in 3 odds are still 1 in 3. But you pick 2 out of 3 doors if you switch.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 02:13 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s no real meaning difference between a one-sided die, or weighted die, since they both only allow for one possibility only. A weighted die, and one-sided die only allow for one result, one possibility.

Yeah I get that, but you're pulling the "weighted dice" example out of your ass. I'm sorry, but there's nothing to support it. Nothing! Either things had to be this way based on properties of matter we don't yet understand (the 1-sided-die) or there were myriad possibilities, and the universe is the result of one particular set of variables coming up with the "settings" (or as I call it, the result on the chart for that particular set of rolls). Either way, we evolved as we did because of how the universe is set up; there is nothing (repeat: nothing) to suggest that it was done the other way around. You continue to suppose it is so, and that's fine, but there remains no evidence of weighted dice, nor reason other than wishful thinking to suppose it is so.

(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Other outcome/settings are not possible with weighted dice. I implied this much earlier. Anything that could be said about a “weighted dice” out come could be said of a “one-sided die” outcome.

If you think it’s reasonable to conclude that there were no other possibilities of other settings, It goes without saying, that the argument if we are to assume there was no intentionality, is that these weights/settings just where, there’s no reason for them to possess these setting/weights, but they just did. These setting were not intentionally placed, nor were they the outcome of chance, they were just there. And lucky for us they were.

I addressed most of this above, but I feel it bears repeating. Lucky for us they were... we are here. But we are here, in the shape we are, because of this universe's settings. Who is to say that life does not arise (in other forms) out of nearly every solution-set the universe could have landed on? But whether or not it can is still irrelevant: our universe is the way it is, by random chance as far as anyone can tell, and we evolved the way we are as a consequence of that. It is the height of arrogance to suppose it was done for our benefit, akin to thinking that the sun must go around the earth because after all the earth is the center of the universe. That's why they hated Copernicus so much! How DARE he suggest that humans weren't the center of Creation!! Your argument is little more than a modern form of geocentrism.

(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I agree with the “we are here because of how things are setup”. I’d also say there was no possibility for any other setup, other than how things are setup.

This setup, allowed given adequate space and time, for conscious, self-aware creatures, to arise, with moral, rational, and creative capacities, and seemingly natural propensity to believe they existed for some purpose, or reason, a sense that there was something sacred underlying the basic foundations of life, etc…..

Now, something about this screams out “intention” for me.

Okay...fine... I disagree, but okay...

(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And if one does not particularly try to silence his intuitions, that scream should be as audible to them as well. You can say “that our intuitions do point this way, but our intuitions are a terrible guide to reality, and in this case the assumptions derived by it are false.” And this “intuitive” assumption, that which screams “intent”, is not particularly dispelled even if one were to acknowledge all the scientific facts.

No, OUR intuitions don't say that at all. That's why I keep making the point about human hubris/arrogance. It may be pleasing to the ego to think that humans are just that important, but I think a simple look around at the vastness of the universe will quickly tell us that we are anything but important. I suggest a read-through of Pale Blue Dot or A Brief History of Time to develop your sense of just how insignificant we really are on the cosmic scale of things.

(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My reference to the Weasel program, was to highlight there were weights involved to insure the outcome, as opposed to letting all the “variables cycle endlessly”. You could say in the weasel program those weights were programed, and where as for nature, those weights were fixed or weighted into our metaphorical die but absent of any intentional agent. It would following the same line of argument as highlighted earlier in regards to the universe: Ecological Niches need not develop but they did, the frequency of mutations need not be what it was to produce the diversity it did, with the outcome of sentient creatures, but it did, selection pressures need to be present to the extent they were, but they were, DNA not allow for combinations in which conscious, self-aware creatures could come about, but it did, all of which trace there cause and origin to that one-side/weighted die. It’s all the outcomes of a deterministic universe. The world of the Weasel Program is deterministic in more simplistic but similar way too.

Yeah, I get what you're trying to say about the Weasel Program, but the analogy does not hold. It was set up to demonstrate a very simple principle, and that principle required that the program be set up to retain "hits" and ignore misses, because that's how nature functions once it hits upon a solution to a biochemical pressure on that replicating organism. It has nothing to do with universal constants or their settings. That's why I said stop using it as an example in this conversation.

Ecological niches, as you mention, are a good example of what I'm trying to say. The niches appear (for whatever reason... perhaps an asteroid wipes out the dinosaurs who were filling those niches), and whatever survives steps up to fill them. But it's crazy to say that the asteroid fell to wipe out the dinos so that, 63-64 million years later, one of the rodent-like creatures that was our ancestor at the time could evolve into an intelligent, bipedal ape. Is that an easier to understand example of "got the cart before the horse"? We're here because of the asteriod; the asteroid didn't fall so that we could be here.

(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The reference is from the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, in which Dawkins stated that he couldn’t think of any sort of evidence that would convince him that there was a God. And someone threw that scenario out to him, which he rejected as well, as more likely to be some elaborate hoax than anything else. The suggestion here would be that any natural explanation for any scenario you’d imagine would be posited as more likely than any God explanation.

Okay, neat. Then Dawkins is wrong, in his little off-the-cuff assertion. There would be easy ways to tell if it was a hoax, in the DNA string-- the main one being to look for a natural explanation or evidence of human tampering. If we found a message that was clearly-artificial but beyond human capacity, repeated throughout the animal kingdom, it would be pretty clear evidence (I think) of a Message from the Creator.

Edit to Add: ...or evidence of Aliens Who Just Think it's Funny to Screw with Humanity.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-08-2015, 02:25 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My reference to the Weasel program, was to highlight there were weights involved to insure the outcome,

There were no "weights" - what do you even mean by that?

Quote:as opposed to letting all the “variables cycle endlessly”. You could say in the weasel program those weights were programed, and where as for nature, those weights were fixed or weighted into our metaphorical die but absent of any intentional agent.

You utterly misunderstand the weasel program example. It is about the power of cumulative selection and nothing else.

Quote:
It would following the same line of argument as highlighted earlier in regards to the universe: Ecological Niches need not develop but they did,

What do you think ecological niches are?

Quote:the frequency of mutations need not be what it was to produce the diversity it did,

OK.

Quote:with the outcome of sentient creatures, but it did, selection pressures need to be present to the extent they were, but they were, DNA not allow for combinations in which conscious, self-aware creatures could come about, but it did, all of which trace there cause and origin to that one-side/weighted die.

Your conclusion does not follow. Those are contingent events that could have happened very differently.

Quote:It’s all the outcomes of a deterministic universe. The world of the Weasel Program is deterministic in more simplistic but similar way too.

The weasel program is most definitely not deterministic - it is probabilistic. Maybe you mean algorithmic.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-08-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 01:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 12:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand probability very well, thank you.

Care to demonstrate? Probability is far less intuitive than statistics.

You're on Let's Make A Deal, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I love probability problems. Big Grin
No. Why would I trade a goat for a goat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 01:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, it's not because the host knows.

I think it's precisely because the host knows. Monty Hall ain't gonna reveal the car.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-08-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 03:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 01:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, it's not because the host knows.

I think it's precisely because the host knows. Monty ain't gonna reveal the car.

Monty is full.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: