|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted March 08, 2010 05:47 PM |
|
|
Indeed, talk about the chance of there being god!
EDIT: or odds!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 09:31 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
You are overlooking something here. It's not the element of TIME (as in FUTURE events) that is the key here, instead it's NOT KNOWING which event will come to pass. Probability works flawlessly only, if all POSSIBLE outcomes are KNOWN, but not the actual result of something whether it happend in the past or whether it will happen in the future.
De facto it doesn't matter whether someone DID the coin flips alrready and noted the events, or whether it will yet happen.
The only determining factor is that the actual EVENT isn't KNOWN.
Take HoMM. We all know that the values are set - it's already determined how much money a chest contains when we move to it - we do NOT KNOW, however, what's in it - but we know the probabilities.
Moreover, kit's absolutely NO problem to try and determine the probability of PAST events. They DID happen, however, what was the chance they happened. Probability is, as we all know, a point in development of life. Life HAS developed, still people debate about how probable that was.
Nope, probability doesn't make sense only for future events.
I wonder, actually, what gave you that strange idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no general difference in the question whether god exists or not or whether it's heads or tails: ONLY ONE event can happen, and only ONE state can be true.
However, the trouble is, that god isn't well defined and that's a ton of gods, most of them mutually exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now take your coin. Heads, Tails, 50% each. But is that really true? A flip may result in a coin landing on the side, standing still and showing no side. I (or we) can IMAGINE this possibility, but is it a REAL possibility? The coin might break in two (showing both heads and tails), again we can imagine that, but is it a REAL possibility?
The question is: do probabilities change because we can imagine certain "results". Without EVIDENCE, that the imagined results are actually possible AT ALL.
Which is the god problem as well.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 08, 2010 11:11 PM |
|
|
I have, say, six rooms in my house. If I am in one room, my wife is one of the five remaining rooms. I have no idea which room she is in but I know she's in the house. Is the probability that she is in the kitchen at this specific time 20%? The probability isn't 20% for each room, because that implies that her location is delocalized over five rooms. She is in a specific room at this time. My lack of knowledge over which room she was in does not make it possible that she's in the kitchen if she is, in fact, not in the kitchen. Knowledge of possibilities does play a role in determining probability of future events, but you're confusing one thing with another.
Don't believe me? Try this thought experiment. There are five rooms in my house. We'll call them rooms A, B, C, D and E. I tell my wife to hide in one of the rooms. So, lacking any knowledge of what room she is in, you would maintain that the probability she is in room A is 20% (likewise the probability she is in rooms B, C, D, and E. This is actually wrong, and this is why. No my wife calls my friend Pete without my knowledge and tells him what room she is in. Pete and my wife know what room she is in, but I do not. Someone asks me what is the probability that my wife is in room A. Well, what is it?
Probability in this situation has no meaning, and it certainly doesn't depend on my knowledge. My wife is in a particular room. Both she and an independent observer know that my wife is in room B. The probability that she is in room A is not 20%, because she is in room B. And this is the same without Pete's existence, by the way, because my wife knows where she is. And it's even the same if we replace my wife with a candlestick. The candlestick is where it is at a given time. There's no probability that it is in room A if it is in fact in room B. Probability has no meaning for events which have already occurred.
Now, where probability would have meaning is in the following thought experiment. I tell my wife that tomorrow she should hide in one of the five rooms in my house. And today I say, What is the probability that she will hide in room A? Assuming the choice she makes is random (i.e., my wife has no preference of one choice over the other), then the probability she hides in room A would be 20%. What this means is that if I repeated the experiment a thousand times (and again her choice was randomly determined), then I would be right 20% of the time.
Where knowledge comes into play is in refining the likelihood of her chosing one room over another. Say, for instance, that I know my wife really likes to eat a lot. Well then I might judge that the probability that she will be in the kitchen is higher than in the laundry room. Knowledge can be used for predictive purposes or to rationalize deviations from "random chance" a posteriori.
Quote:
They DID happen, however, what was the chance they happened.
Yes, that's a past event. However, for the purposes of this experiment, it is treated as equivalent to a future event because you're placing yourself at a point of time before the event happened in order to determine what was the chance that the event would have occurred.
Here is the distinction.
We will say that exactly one week ago, John flipped a coin. He observed it was a heads.
Now we will ask two questions.
(1) What is the probability that the coin flip turned up heads?
(2) What is the probability that the coin flip would have / could have turned up heads?
There's obviously a difference in the tense in which the two questions are framed.
The first is nonsense. The fact is that the result of the coin flip was heads. There is no possibility that it turned up tails, because we know it turned up heads. Probability has no meaning here. What is the probability that Caesar crossed the Rubicon? What is the probability that I was born? What is the probability that the Earth formed? In all these cases, probability is a meaningless concept. Caesar did cross the Rubicon, I was born and the Earth did form.
The second is not nonsense, because it asks us to consider what was the probability that a past event could have come about from previous circumstances. Yes, we know that John flipped a coin and it turned up heads, but if we transport outselves to the moment before he flipped the coin (not literally of course), we know that wasn't the only possibility. At this point the coin flip becomes a future event. A better way to ask this question would be: what was the probability that the head could have come up tails? The answer is correctly one half, because before the coin was flipped, there were two possibilities.
However, all this verbal wrangling clouds the main point which is that God either exists or he doesn't. There's no "percent chance" that he's here any more than there's a "percent chance" that life exists beyond our earth. Either it does or it doesn't.
Quote:
Probability is, as we all know, a point in development of life. Life HAS developed, still people debate about how probable that was.
Yes, and the point of origin of that discussion is before life evolved. In the context of that discussion, the evolution of life is a future event - in other words, "the pseudo-present" is sometime prior to evolution of life. There's no point in asking what the probability is that life did evolve, because it did evolve! It's a matter of frame of reference. You're considering past and future to be relative to your absolute frame of reference; in truth, past and future are dependent on the frame of reference being determined by the question you are asking.
In any case, on this point we're not really disagreeing - you're using a different temporal frame of reference than I am.
Quote:
Now take your coin. Heads, Tails, 50% each. But is that really true? A flip may result in a coin landing on the side, standing still and showing no side. I (or we) can IMAGINE this possibility, but is it a REAL possibility? The coin might break in two (showing both heads and tails), again we can imagine that, but is it a REAL possibility?
Needless complexity; I think we all know I'm dealing with idealized coins. Probabilities are mathematical models of reality. We evaluate probabilities because when the real results differ from predictions based on probabilities (which are based on theoretical models), we can determine something about the randomness of the events involved and the strength of the theoretical models.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 12:07 AM |
|
Edited by Shares at 00:10, 09 Mar 2010.
|
Cute! You seem to be quite near realizing what you've discussed for so long! 
May I?
It is a matter of observation. If your wife is in the house, and not in the living room, there's from your, a perception of views that is not all knowing, there's a 20% chance that she's in the kitchen. So let's say she's in the bedroom. You check the kitchen, not there. Now there's an 25% chance that she's in any given room, from YOUR perspective. From an allknowing view it is always a 100% chance that she's in the bedroom. However, you cannot know that, so from your perspective, it'll be only 25% chance.
If you then check the bedroom and find her, you can know that there's a 100% chance she's there, but if we go back in time again, you can't know that she's there.
So, the real question is(and let's just presume there's a reality!): Is the reality beyond our perception (perception in a any way) really real, to the specific individual? Should we take that part of reality into consideration?
And when are propabilities set? Do they change? And should we consider the propabilities from an objective (all-knowing) perspective, or an individual(limited knowledge?
Let's clarify. You're playing cards. Is the order of the cards set when you shuffle them? When you see them? And if they are set when we shuffle, should we still consider them as unset, since we do not know the result?
EDIT: I know, it's just another set of examples, and not a real clarification, since it isn't that clear.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 02:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It is a matter of observation. If your wife is in the house, and not in the living room, there's from your, a perception of views that is not all knowing, there's a 20% chance that she's in the kitchen. So let's say she's in the bedroom. You check the kitchen, not there. Now there's an 25% chance that she's in any given room, from YOUR perspective. From an allknowing view it is always a 100% chance that she's in the bedroom. However, you cannot know that, so from your perspective, it'll be only 25% chance.
(Etc.)
Well, we've reached the point where this has nothing to do with the original topic, but just for the sake of discussion:
No, that's not quite it. You need to be more precise with your language. If my wife is in the bedroom, my wife is in the bedroom. There's not a chance she's somewhere else.
However, if I wanted to find her, and I did so by picking rooms at random to search, then I would have a 20% of finding her, because I would have a 20% of (randomly) picking the bedroom.
So:
To ask what the probability is of where my wife is has no meaning. To ask what the probability is that I could find her by searching in a random location has a very precise meaning indeed.
You'll notice that the first is present tense and the second is a future event, as I've been illustrating all along.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 08:25 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
We have to go back a little to explain what is actually wrong - or better the misunderstanding here, because we do actually not disagree.
Probabilities are always dealing with RANDOM events. We may say that probability deals with a quantification of how POSSIBLE one or more specific events are when compared to all events possible. It's not important whether the event will take place or has taken place already. It doesn't even matter that we know the result.
For example, this is used to identify forged bookkeeping and so on: if people forge numbers they tend to do it too randomly; comparison of expectation with actual results is done and most of the time can identify forgeries.
Another thing is, that the fact whether a specific event materialized doesn't change anything about it's probability. If a certain number comes up in the lottery, the fact that it was drawn doesn't change the actual probability THAT it was drawn. That specific number was highly unlikely - but one number HAD to be drawn, and no matter which number it was, they were all equally unlikely.
But that's not the point this is all about. When I talked about the coin standing on the side or broke into, you dismissed it as "needless complexity", but it's THAT EXACTLY what matters HERE.
Say, you are in a "gaming tent", and a guy is flipping a coin. The coin has 2 sides, and you can bet on heads or tails, for the following odds: both sides will gain 19 for 10. All fine and well. While you look at the game, the proprietor of the game suddenly changes the odds; you read the following:
heads: 18:10
tails: 18:10
side: 100:10
break: 100:10
side means: the coin lands on the side
break means: it breaks in two
While we can IMAGINE that the coin does the last two when flipped, is that enough to assign a probability of greater 0 for it to happen or to HAVE happened, if there is no evidence for the phenomenon ever occured?
This is what this is all about. If you IMAGINE something, the usual effect with people is, that by talking about it they can imagine it as well, and if it can be imagined it more or less automatically enters the realm of the POSSIBLE, which is what I mean, when I say a probability greater than 0.
What I mean is, that suddenly JUST BY IMAGINATION something enters the realm of possible events - which is the error here, because you need specific evidence for that.
Let's take your wife example. All those questions about probabilities and rooms are based on a couple of prerequisites.
1) It's your house
2) You have a wife
3) Your wife is in the house
4) The house has exactly 5 rooms
5) You can't pass each other while in the house
and probably a couple of others
(Death, you aren't saying this, so sorry for "abusing your name here.)
Now, let's say Death and Me are approaching SOMETHING in the distance. This conversation plays out:
Death: "Imagine that thing in the distance was Corribus' house."
JJ: "Why? And who's Corribus?"
Death: "Well, why not? We can imagine it, can we? Corribus is a guy I used to know on a forum board - a handle for a guy actually. Don't you think, he will have a wife? I mean, otherwise, why have a house and all?"
JJ: "Huh?"
Death: "At this time of day I'd expect her to prepare dinner."
JJ: "Whom?"
Death: "Come on! Corribus' wife, of course. Yes. So she should be in the kitchen. At least I'd expect her to be in the kitchen. They need one, right? A house needs a kitchen. To prepare meals and stuff. Moreover they'll need a sleeping room, a living room, a bath, and a study. Children's rooms..."
JJ: "What are you talking about?"
Death: "THE HOUSE! I'm talking about the house. I'm hungry, and Corribus' wife will just be preparing a meal in the kitchen, have a look at your watch. Anyways, the house should have 5 rooms, because it looks that way: kitchen, bath, living room, sleeping room and either study or children's room, you can't have everything, can you, and once you have children you haven't got time for studying anyway, so that's how it will be.
Ok, I'm decided. She will be in the kitchen. Let's find her."
Question: Is finding Corribus' wife in the kitchen of that "house" in the distance a possible event? If it WAS, it had a probability greater 0, because it COULD indeed come to pass.
Death says, it's undecidable - since we don't know anything we cannot assign a probability, neither 0 nor something else.
I say, that is wrong, because if we accept that it might in fact be POSSIBLE we automatically assign a probability greater 0.
The error is, logically, that we cannot say whether the actual event is indeed possible, we just CREATED something imaginary, and by doing that it LOOKS LIKE it MIGHT be possible. However, in fact it never enters the realm of possible events, at least not at that point, which means it's pure fiction or imagination.
Which means: just because you can ENVISION something it doesn't enter the realm of in reality possible events.
Being able to envision any number of "gods" existing doesn't create the possibility of their existance. You need a bit more than that. Think about the coin example.
So, for this context, for any ATHEIST (as opposed to an AGNOSTIC), LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE, the idea of one or more gods existing never left the realm of imagination, that is: FOR THEM there is no evidence making any of the exxisting ideas about any god more than imagination, so there is nothing there which would justify viewing god as a "possible event". God or gods is as real as any fairy tale.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 02:52 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, you need to rewind and reread Corribus' post. He explains better than I could why knowledge is the factor here, or rather lack of knowledge. With lack of knowledge, probabilities do not exist (=make no sense).  I explained that countless times already.
(note that 'probabilities do not exist' doesn't mean that the probability is 0, that is a probability too.... even though english language doesn't help here, mathematics does)
I already said that assigning a probability to God's existence is nonsense because it doesn't exist (the probability).
Sorry that I can't make QP-worthy post like Corribus since I lack time and dedication  (even if it is wrong mind you)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 03:46 PM |
|
|
How often am I supposed to repeat the same thing again and again?
If you consider something POSSIBLE, you AUTOMATICALLY assign a probability greater 0. Look at the coin example. If you consider it POSSIBLE that the coin breaks, there is a break probability as well that is greater 0. Otherwise breaking would be impossible.
Now, the error is earlier: it comes with automatically transferring something that exists PURELY in someone's imagination (after all, NEVER EVER has someone see a coin actually and factually break after a flip, so there is no evidence it could break) into the realm of the FACTUALLY possible, without having ANY evidence. That's an operation like dividing by 0, sotospeak.
The only reason I use the term probability here, is to explain in easy terms, where the error is.
See that? You can IMAGINE a lot of things, but imagination isn't error-free. Language isn't error-free either. Terms are not error-free and may in fact be contradictory. So if something is PURE imagination, it lacks an important quality to make the transfer from pure imaginational fantasy to factual POSSIBILITY.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 03:50 PM |
|
|
In contingent proofs, there is no such thing as 0% and 100% probabilities. Only in logic do you know with exactness that something is totally impossible (contradicts logic) or totally possible (it follows logic).
Considering something "possible" is an opinion. The status of being unknown is the important part.
Ask a 5 year old if he considers a complex logical conclusion possible or not -- let's assume he hasn't studied logic. What would his answer be? Pure opinion. Because he lacks the knowledge.
Of course in real life, not in mathematics, it is impossible to be exact, and proofs are not the same "absolute proofs", if you know what I mean.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 04:17 PM |
|
|
Proof is a different problem.
The actual point is, IF the imagination creates something it STAYS imagination when the imagination cannot be backed by a "real" part.
And for everything that is PURE imagination, the question whether it exists or not does not present itself - there is no reason why it MIGHT even exist. It's basically a forbideden operation.
That's why you can't say it MIGHT exist. That is already a statement you cannot make. How would you know, something might exist that is pure imagination?
So the only thing you CAN say about a product of the imagination that isn't bcked by anything "solid", is that it's an imagination and NOTHING AT ALL points to it being more. Period.
The addition, it MIGHT exist in reality is FALSE - you cannot make it.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted March 09, 2010 08:44 PM |
|
|
But we do have solid backing things for religion/gods. In theory. The milk drinking statues in India, or records of sightings of Angels, or Magic performed by some Neopagans. We have accounts of miracles and such going way way way back, and even today people will say that they have heard the word of god or spoken in tongues. Sure, they MIGHT be mad, they MIGHT have other explanations, but we/they attribute it to divine forces. We have things that MIGHT be proof of god(s) or might not be. Since we're not sure how these things came about, we are unsure. It's like in ancient times, how they thought volcanic eruptions were caused by the Gods being angry. They didn't know what caused it, so they imagined Gods causing it. Since they didn't have more evidence either way, they MIGHT have been right.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They didn't know what caused it, so they imagined Gods causing it. Since they didn't have more evidence either way, they MIGHT have been right.
No, that's the wrong conclusion.
They might NOT have been right. This is a wrong conclusion and the logical error I'm pointing out.
"Might be right" assumes a) there is a "right" explanation and b) it is possible that "they" accidentally stumbled upon that "right" explanation.
However: with NO evidence whatsoever, EVERY (of an infinite number of possible) explanations might accidentally be true. Mathematically, this means, since every single one of the possible explanations has an equal chance of being accidentally right, and there are INFINITE possible explanations, the chance of being right amounts to ZERO; if it was bigger than zero, infinite x a very small number is still infinite.
In fact, the whole operation is "illegal". I mean the operation: if ANY explanation may be right than a SPECIFIC one has a chance of being right as well.
This is the critical point. If there is an INFINITE number of possibilities (or explanations), then a specific one "drops out" of the chance of being possible.
Imagine a lottery with an infinite number of lots. If you buy one lot, how big is your chance that yours will be drawn?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:09 AM |
|
|
That assumes each possibilty has an equal chance. For instance, I doubt that peanut butter formed the foundation of the universe. While anything is possible, the possibility of that particular thing being true is a lot lower. So there are not infinate possibilties with the same probability. We may not know which is higher in the possibility totem pole, but then again we are not all knowing.
Which is where we err straight off the bat, when we assume that we even have the most likely answer. Ie the big bang, or god, or whatever. Our limited knowledge and intelligence (in the grand scheme of things) is a lot less then some think it is. In away I agree with Jolly. We don't know that a 'higher' power had anything to do with it, so assuming it did is a mistake. Never assume anything. However automatically assuming it didn't is JUST as big a mistake. Leave all avenues open, never ASSUME anything, and maybe just maybe one day we might accidently stumble on the truth.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 01:26 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, I said it before. You (and neither anyone else) have no idea about the random distribution of the probabilities. You can't say that they (the infinite ones) are all evenly distributed.
Even the example you gave with Succubi is based on some things, not completely random. A completely random one would be one in which it would ignore:
1) demons
2) the effect, in this case, "wet dreams" or w/e
3) religion
4) even the respective language (which ARE biased in certain ways)
5) it would probably ignore any plausible "common sense" like, time direction, space, physicality, spatial location, dimensions, etc
Now that is what would be totally random.
Since everything human mind imagines is based off certain things, more or less, the probability is completely unknown... and sure not to be 0% (but neither 100%). In practice the two extremes are impossible to get. (only in math can you be that precise)
That is, you can never know with absolute knowledge whether something truly exists (maybe we're in a simulation) or whether something does NOT exist. (hey, lack of senses, w/e).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 01:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
They didn't know what caused it, so they imagined Gods causing it. Since they didn't have more evidence either way, they MIGHT have been right.
No, that's the wrong conclusion.
They might NOT have been right. This is a wrong conclusion and the logical error I'm pointing out.
"Might be right" assumes a) there is a "right" explanation and b) it is possible that "they" accidentally stumbled upon that "right" explanation.
However: with NO evidence whatsoever, EVERY (of an infinite number of possible) explanations might accidentally be true. Mathematically, this means, since every single one of the possible explanations has an equal chance of being accidentally right, and there are INFINITE possible explanations, the chance of being right amounts to ZERO; if it was bigger than zero, infinite x a very small number is still infinite.
Funny, none of the atheist "gurus" like Dawkins and Hitchens can name these "infinite possible explanations" for how the universe came to be.
Based on what we now know, that the univese is not eternal and could not have produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause, it is irrational to say anything other than the universe was not created by God.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 02:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Based on what we now know, that the univese is not eternal and could not have produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause, it is irrational to say anything other than the universe was not created by God.
This is exactly how brainwashing in the middle ages worked. Something happened.....you can't explain?...then of course it is GOD's work.
Like they did with solar eclipses that time --> we have been sinners!..So god will show us his power and turn of the light!
Wanna try something new Elodin, or wanna stay on this "middle ages" road?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 02:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Funny, none of the atheist "gurus" like Dawkins and Hitchens can name these "infinite possible explanations" for how the universe came to be.
Based on what we now know, that the univese is not eternal and could not have produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause, it is irrational to say anything other than the universe was not created by God.
you fool, What's wrong with scientists saying "we just don't know?" In fact, that's what a lot of scientists do say. if god did create the universe, whoop-de-f**king-do, you were right and so where the scientists. At least when the scientists are wrong, they have something called professional honesty, and admit they are wrong, unlike...ray comfort, kirk cameron, tud hughes, kent hovind, etc etc.
the idea that religion and science is mutally exclusive is an absolute joke.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 02:21 PM |
|
|
Clarification.
bixie, he was aiming at atheists who say "god doesn't exist" rather that "I don't know". Atheism and religion ARE mutually exclusive. (not science)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 05:26 PM |
|
|
but what I love in fanatical evangelical christians is they treat Atheism and science like it's the same thing. I have noticed that Elodin's writing has the same rhetoric and style as Ray comfort or Kent hovind, both of whom think that the earth was created in 6 days and falsified PHD's in order to be taken more seriously. ray comfort even had the nerve to write an essay condemning charles darwin of being a nazi and put it in the updated version of origins of species.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 07:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker, I said it before. You (and neither anyone else) have no idea about the random distribution of the probabilities. You can't say that they (the infinite ones) are all evenly distributed.
Even the example you gave with Succubi is based on some things, not completely random. A completely random one would be one in which it would ignore:
1) demons
2) the effect, in this case, "wet dreams" or w/e
3) religion
4) even the respective language (which ARE biased in certain ways)
5) it would probably ignore any plausible "common sense" like, time direction, space, physicality, spatial location, dimensions, etc
Now that is what would be totally random.
Since everything human mind imagines is based off certain things, more or less, the probability is completely unknown... and sure not to be 0% (but neither 100%). In practice the two extremes are impossible to get. (only in math can you be that precise)
That is, you can never know with absolute knowledge whether something truly exists (maybe we're in a simulation) or whether something does NOT exist. (hey, lack of senses, w/e).
Umm, I think you are getting off track.
The succubi "theory" is based on SOME assumptions without any foundation, for example that people should be able to completely control all sexual bodily functions even sleeping. That assumption isn't random in the sense that it's an unconnected assumption, but it's arbitrary and unfounded. There is no end to the amount of arbitrary and unfounded assumptions you can make and come up with arbitrary and unfounded claims as a consequence.
Which for you shouldn't matter. For you - succubi might exist, right? For you the Harry Potter world just behind the next railway station platform might exist as well - after all, who could prove that claim wrong?
What you overlooking is, that all this imaginings are based on nothing except imagination.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
