reddish

"In other words" ?

How do the first statements lead in any way to the conclusion ("that we aren't here by chance") ? Please elaborate.

Peez

:thumbs:

Peez

Peez

I love decreeing, it makes me feel like a creationist.Yup.That's what I said.Take your time.I don't know what Rog thinks, do you?The really funny part: even if I was, you cannot even address it. Sad.High compared to what?1) Reference, please.

2) Exactly what do we know about the origin of the universe? Has your good buddy Rog seen a lot of new universes originating?Completely unsupported assertion.I am just a presumptious guy. I presume that you and Rog are stuck inside this universe, and cannot get out. Yup, I am one presumptious guy.Sure, that may be so. On the other hand, maybe not. There is an awful lot of stuff out there to read, though, so I cannot read everything. Meanwhile, I see that you are utterly unwilling (or unable) to actually argue for such ideas yourself. All you can do is point to Rog, with the implication that since he knows so much about something that he must be right about everything. Well, I am not convinced. Call me presumptuous. Oh, you already did. Such is life.

Peez

Joe Meert

JM: Strictly speaking it is (at least partially) an intrinsic property of the coin. After all, the probabilities change if the coin is a pyramid or a cube. When I was 8, I had a two-headed coin. Won a lot of bets.

Cheers

Joe Meert

RidgeBe

Rogernme-

It appears that you do not understand chance. Chance is something that happens unpredictably without discernible intervention and/or observable cause. Chance values are used to discern predictability, intervention and/or observable cause. Let’s take your coin flip: most coins are not perfect (one side weighs more than another); humans who flip coins don’t do it the same way each time; the wind currents at the time of each coin flip are not the same each time; the surface on which a coin bounces is irregular, etc. If chance is operating, flipping enough coins will result in all the factors affecting the flip evening out, resulting in about half the flips being heads, and half being tails. But, if the result of flipping shows that one side appears in a significantly greater proportion than the other, there are some predictable, discernable intervention and/or observable causes. The suffix “able�? means capable of. In other words, non-chance results are capable of being predicted, discerned and/or observed.

Spenser

Roger's Pet,

At best your argument attempts to show that the universe is determined. Determined by what? God is a mere assertion; what evidence do you claim?

And who the fuck cares what Roger Penrose has to say? Arguments from authority are not very impressive; can you handle arguing on your own?

By all means, feel free to use my entire name when responding to me...

Rogernme

Ridgebe says: So if the intervention isn’t discernable, or the cause isn’t observable, then it’s chance? I don’t think so Ridgebe—wouldn’t it just be your “lack of knowledge�? of the interventions and/or causes. Like Monty Hall’s three doors—for you, Ridgebe, each door may have a 1/3 chance of having the big prize . . . but for Monty, he knows 100% which door.



Ashaman asks whether I can Nope. Hell Ashaman, I can’t even consistently predict when a fair coin will come up heads/tails. But then you can’t even predict which of Monty Hall’s three doors has the big prize—as I’ve noted, Ashaman, it’s called a “lack of knowledge�? . . . in the case of the doors, you lack Monty’s knowledge, although I suspect that you’re probably much smarter than Monty.

And keep in mind, Ashaman, that the evolution of the quanta wave function is deterministic/time symmetrical—it’s only when a measurement is made—and it’s not clearly known/defined as to what exactly constitutes a measurement—that the wave function collapses, and that those unpleasant probabilities seem to show up, then instantaneously the quanta jumps to another deterministic/time symmetrical evolving wave function.

Dr. Goose

Ah, the argumentum ad snottiness. "Silly boy, if you were smart enough to agree with me, I wouldn't need to present an argument."

Rogernme

Joe Meert: Interesting point about the intrinsic property of a two-headed coin—perhaps I should have noted that I was assuming a fair coin. But that reminds me of a hypothetical I once asked a friend—

If I flip a coin and get twenty heads in a row, what are the odds that I’ll get heads on the 21st toss?

Assuming a fair coin, the odds would of course remain 50/50. And my friend answered that the odds would be 50/50.

But since my hypothetical didn’t specify that the coin was fair, I said that the odds were actually quite high that I’d get heads on the 21st toss because 20 heads in a row strongly indicates the coin was probably two-headed. My friend got pissed.

So here's my question Joe: Was my hypothetical question unfair? Should I have apologized?

RidgeBe

Rogernme-

In addition to your lack of understanding of chance, you have a comparable lacking of grammar. The “able�? and comparable suffixes refer to the capability of prediction, the capability of being able to discern and/or the capability of being able to observe. Knowledge is not equivalent to the capability of acquiring it. And, if you use “Wouldn’t it just be…�? the end of this sentence requires a question mark.

Years ago Monty Hall’s producers said they never told Monty which door had the prize so he would be as astounded as his contestants were.