|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Devil's Advocaat
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: A Question Of Probabilities |
 |
|
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
Devil's Advocaat <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
|
No, it just means they don't understand the first things
about the theory of probability,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg G.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On May 30, 6:11 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:21:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Carl Kaufmann
cwkaufm...@cox.net>:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Obviously they don't believe anyone has ever won the Powerball
lottery. It's current history has an a priori chance of 10^-2700 the
last time I did the calculation.
I think you need to recheck that; the jackpot odds are
approximately 1 in 1.2 x 10^8. Or did you mean something
else?
|
I think he means the results of dozens of jackpot drawings in
succession.
--
Greg G.
What do I do now? My fortune cookie contradicts my horoscope! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
TimK
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9069f5f3-78fc-4d19-8b4e-2410f43c8de5@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
|
Shuffle a deck of cards. Then lay one down face up and record what it is.
Reshuffle and do this 24 more times. The odds against the order or cards
you arrived at are on the order of 1 in 1 x10^43. And yet there they are.
The probability that 25 cards would be laid down is 1. The precise order
was much less than that.
Life arose so I'd put the probability at 1. The precise way in which it
arose was much less than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Charles Brenner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On May 30, 2:29 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
|
Close enough.
| Quote: |
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
|
Why would you say that -- are you playing with the fact that given a
logical contradiction anything can be proven? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob Casanova
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:57:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Greg G."
<ggwizz@gmail.com>:
| Quote: |
On May 30, 6:11 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:21:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Carl Kaufmann
cwkaufm...@cox.net>:
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Obviously they don't believe anyone has ever won the Powerball
lottery. It's current history has an a priori chance of 10^-2700 the
last time I did the calculation.
I think you need to recheck that; the jackpot odds are
approximately 1 in 1.2 x 10^8. Or did you mean something
else?
I think he means the results of dozens of jackpot drawings in
succession.
|
Aha! OK, that makes sense if there have been around 280
drawings. Thanks.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob Casanova
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On 31 May 2008 05:38:03 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com>:
| Quote: |
"On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:34:10 -0400, in article
4840b926$0$5715$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, TimK stated..."
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9069f5f3-78fc-4d19-8b4e-2410f43c8de5@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Shuffle a deck of cards. Then lay one down face up and record what it is.
Reshuffle and do this 24 more times. The odds against the order or cards
you arrived at are on the order of 1 in 1 x10^43. And yet there they are.
The probability that 25 cards would be laid down is 1. The precise order
was much less than that.
Life arose so I'd put the probability at 1. The precise way in which it
arose was much less than that.
Consider the probability that all of your ancestors lived
long enough to reach maturity.
In times past, the probability of a given infant living
that long were quite a bit less than 100%. Let's say that
it was about 1/2. (If that seems too low, consider the
probability of survival of a fetus to birth.)
You had two parents, four grandparents, and so on back
thousands of years. Of course, at some point, there had
to be some intermarriage, so let's just say that you
had 10 different ancestors at the Nth generation, and
that there were 3 generations per century, or 30
ancestors in each century. That makes 300 ancestors in
one thousand years.
The probability that all of those 300 ancestors would
survive to maturity would be (1/2)^300, or about
10^-100.
|
OK, and this can be extended as far into the past as one
could wish, and through ancestral species, with the
probability of survival of any particular individual in any
particular generation decreasing with average number of
offspring per generation. We can probably surpass a
googleplex before getting back even to the KT boundary
(which you're welcome to calculate if you wish, with
appropriate assumptions). But so? Everyone but creationists
knows that post hoc probability calculations are meaningless
in such a scenario.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
r norman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On Sat, 31 May 2008 13:32:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Everyone but creationists
knows that post hoc probability calculations are meaningless
in such a scenario.
|
Everyone but creationists and all those non-creationists on these news
groups that harangued me for arguing exactly that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Devil's Advocaat wrote:
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Obviously they don't believe anyone has ever won the Powerball
lottery. It's current history has an a priori chance of 10^-2700 the
last time I did the calculation.
|
Any event that has actually happened
can be argued to have as low an a-priori probability as one wants
by enlarging the space of possibilities to be considered sufficiently,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ferrous Patella
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: Chez Watt: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
| Quote: |
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
They are quite correct.
I once tried to deal out an entire deck of cards. In fact I tried this
many times. Things always went smoothly for the first 41 cards, but then
I would always get stuck. Sometimes the phone would ring and I would
stop and forget what I was doing. Or the friendly JWs or Mormons would
suddenly show up at my door and distract me. Or the remaining cards
would spontaneously burst into flames or be consumed by Schr”dinger's
(the neighbour's) cat. The point is that the universe was clearly
conspiring to prevent me from laying down that 42nd card. If that's not
evidence that the above is a law of nature, then I don't know what is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ymir
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Chez Watt: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
In article <Xns9AAF9D8D5EC6mail125797popnet@216.196.97.136>,
Ferrous Patella <FerrousPatella@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
They are quite correct.
I once tried to deal out an entire deck of cards. In fact I tried this
many times. Things always went smoothly for the first 41 cards, but then
I would always get stuck. Sometimes the phone would ring and I would
stop and forget what I was doing. Or the friendly JWs or Mormons would
suddenly show up at my door and distract me. Or the remaining cards
would spontaneously burst into flames or be consumed by Schr”dinger's
(the neighbour's) cat. The point is that the universe was clearly
conspiring to prevent me from laying down that 42nd card. If that's not
evidence that the above is a law of nature, then I don't know what is.
|
Given the obvious math error inherent in my post, I don't know that I am
worthy of your nomination. Or perhaps that makes me even more worthy.
André |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 31 May 2008 05:38:03 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com>:
"On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:34:10 -0400, in article
4840b926$0$5715$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, TimK stated..."
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9069f5f3-78fc-4d19-8b4e-2410f43c8de5@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Shuffle a deck of cards. Then lay one down face up and record what it is.
Reshuffle and do this 24 more times. The odds against the order or cards
you arrived at are on the order of 1 in 1 x10^43. And yet there they are.
The probability that 25 cards would be laid down is 1. The precise order
was much less than that.
Life arose so I'd put the probability at 1. The precise way in which it
arose was much less than that.
Consider the probability that all of your ancestors lived
long enough to reach maturity.
In times past, the probability of a given infant living
that long were quite a bit less than 100%. Let's say that
it was about 1/2. (If that seems too low, consider the
probability of survival of a fetus to birth.)
You had two parents, four grandparents, and so on back
thousands of years. Of course, at some point, there had
to be some intermarriage, so let's just say that you
had 10 different ancestors at the Nth generation, and
that there were 3 generations per century, or 30
ancestors in each century. That makes 300 ancestors in
one thousand years.
The probability that all of those 300 ancestors would
survive to maturity would be (1/2)^300, or about
10^-100.
OK, and this can be extended as far into the past as one
could wish, and through ancestral species, with the
probability of survival of any particular individual in any
particular generation decreasing with average number of
offspring per generation. We can probably surpass a
googleplex before getting back even to the KT boundary
(which you're welcome to calculate if you wish, with
appropriate assumptions). But so? Everyone but creationists
knows that post hoc probability calculations are meaningless
in such a scenario.
|
I have said the same many times here:
| Quote: |
Any event that has actually happened
can be argued to have as low an a-priori probability as one wants
by enlarging the space of possibilities to be considered sufficiently.
|
There is a deeper misunderstanding behind it however:
the idea that events -have- a probability,
which is in some sense a property of that event.
Probabilities depend instead on the event considered,
and on what is considered to be the space of all possible events.
By enlarging the space of possibilities sufficiently
you can get any probability as small as you want.
Any argument that says that such and such can't happen
because it -has- too low a probability is invalid,
Jan
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Charles Brenner
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
On Jun 2, 7:42 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 31 May, 23:01, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
On May 30, 2:29 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Close enough.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Why would you say that -- are you playing with the fact that given a
logical contradiction anything can be proven?
Not at all, I am just questioning their reasoning.
|
I question yours. If someone claims some set X of things are
impossible, why in the world would you read that as saying that all
non-X things are even possible, let alone certain?
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I asked if you were taking
advantage of the fact that from an incorrect premise one can deduce
any conclusion -- in other words whether you were mocking the fact
that the premise is incorrect. But you turned down that lifeline
(which wasn't a real one anyway, since the premise is not wrong in any
meaningful sense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:0vc344puhusj6dp5lntrs718im2dl578cu@4ax.com...
On 31 May 2008 05:38:03 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com>:
"On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:34:10 -0400, in article
4840b926$0$5715$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, TimK stated..."
"Devil's Advocaat" <mankygoat@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9069f5f3-78fc-4d19-8b4e-2410f43c8de5@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If as opponents of evolution insist that events with a probability of
10^-50 or less are impossible.
Does this mean that all events with probabilities greater than 10^-50
are definite certainties?
Shuffle a deck of cards. Then lay one down face up and record what it
is.
Reshuffle and do this 24 more times. The odds against the order or cards
you arrived at are on the order of 1 in 1 x10^43. And yet there they
are.
The probability that 25 cards would be laid down is 1. The precise order
was much less than that.
Life arose so I'd put the probability at 1. The precise way in which it
arose was much less than that.
Consider the probability that all of your ancestors lived
long enough to reach maturity.
In times past, the probability of a given infant living
that long were quite a bit less than 100%. Let's say that
it was about 1/2. (If that seems too low, consider the
probability of survival of a fetus to birth.)
You had two parents, four grandparents, and so on back
thousands of years. Of course, at some point, there had
to be some intermarriage, so let's just say that you
had 10 different ancestors at the Nth generation, and
that there were 3 generations per century, or 30
ancestors in each century. That makes 300 ancestors in
one thousand years.
The probability that all of those 300 ancestors would
survive to maturity would be (1/2)^300, or about
10^-100.
OK, and this can be extended as far into the past as one
could wish, and through ancestral species, with the
probability of survival of any particular individual in any
particular generation decreasing with average number of
offspring per generation. We can probably surpass a
googleplex before getting back even to the KT boundary
(which you're welcome to calculate if you wish, with
appropriate assumptions). But so? Everyone but creationists
knows that post hoc probability calculations are meaningless
in such a scenario.
That's my point exactly. Probabilities from the wrong end don't mean much.
That's how creationists use them.
|
My priori is much better than my posteriri,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Painter
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: Re: A Question Of Probabilities |
|
|
Vernon Balbert wrote:
| Quote: |
My priori is much better than my posteriri,
If you're female, would you be up to offering photographic evidence of
that statement? (I suppose the females would prefer you being male
and offering said proof.)
|
Female?
Clearly he worships the FSM and is talking about pasta.
Tonight teh universe ends according to those who believe in Maever The Cat
so it really does not matter.
Dear Maeve, my girlfriend wanted the cats and that's the only reason I have
Sam the dog, but remember that he loved the kittens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
