< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

Probabilities

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20854
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:11
 
Jefe - 03 February 2018 08:12 AM
EN - 02 February 2018 05:17 PM

So, is 50/50 the appropriate probability?

Not even close.
You may be conflating binary yes/no answer with a 50/50 probability when that is not necessarily the case (almost certainly not the case, when considering the existence of (a) god(s).)  Not all binary questions have a 50/50 probability for each answer, in fact, many of them have highly spread probabilities between each answer.

I’m not conflating anything, Jefe.  Here is what I said: “What is the probability that “God” exists? Assume that “God” means some form of Creator (no particular denomination).  How to figure the probability?  Impossible. We don’t know what is required to bring a universe into being. The possibilities are “a creator is not needed” and “a creator is needed”.  So, is 50/50 the appropriate probability?  Hard to say.  We simply don’t have enough knowledge to determine what is required.

I did not answer my question - I just asked it.  In reality, figuring the probability is impossible. When Vegas sets odds on the Super Bowl or the Kentucky Derby, they have lots of history and lots of outcomes and lots of information to put into the formula.  With respect to God (intelligent creator, no particular flavor), we don’t have all that. It would be like saying “here’s the red team and here’s the blue team - who wins?”  Unknown, as we have no information.  So nobody can say that it is likely or unlikely that there is intelligence at the foundation of the universe. I mentioned 50% just because either there is or there isn’t intelligence at the foundation of the universe.  But the probability is absolutely unknown to anyone.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:11
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:03 PM
jdrnd - 02 February 2018 06:25 PM
EN - 02 February 2018 06:00 PM

A simulation is an intelligently designed computer program. There is not difference between a Universal Programmer and a “God”.

For one, we’re not part of a computer simulatation.

Secondly there is a big difference between a supernatural omniscient all powerful being and a computer simulation.
Answer this question! (said in a demanding way)
So if your imaginary being turned about to be a computer simulation would you still worship it?

Jeff, Jeff, you require so much work. God would not be the computer simulation.  God would be the one who programmed it.  And yes, if I came in contact with an intelligence that created the universe, I would be in awe of it (awe is my definition of “worship”).  And you don’t know if we are part of a simulation or not.  You continue to make claims you cannot back up. You continue to fire blanks. This possibility was raised by NASA scientists.  It did not come from me. Yes, it’s only a possibility. But you don’t know as much as the people who propose it.

EN EN EN,
The romantic in you has certainly come out in this thread.
Perhaps you are a computer simulation, but I am no nt   nt nooot ntttt.

damn there is a gli glitch gli in my prog prog [rporam.
help I am am am am am am  


blank

[ Edited: 03 February 2018 12:13 by jdrnd]
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20854
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:12
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 03 February 2018 11:37 AM
EN - 02 February 2018 05:17 PM

What is the probability that “God” exists? Assume that “God” means some form of Creator (no particular denomination).  How to figure the probability?  Impossible. We don’t know what is required to bring a universe into being. The possibilities are “a creator is not needed” and “a creator is needed”.  So, is 50/50 the appropriate probability?  Hard to say.  We simply don’t have enough knowledge to determine what is required.

I’m inviting people to give their thoughts on probabilities, but I’d especially like to hear from mathematicians.  Thanks.

Mathematicians won’t help you. Whatever probability you assign to the existence of God—from zero to a hundred to anything in between—is based purely on belief, since there’s no evidence to support any specific probability.

Agreed. I just wanted the math dudes to weigh in on the basics of probabilities. burt is a mathematician, and a gambler, so I wanted his input.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:12
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM

But the probability is absolutely unknown to anyone.

because its not statistical

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20854
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:14
 
jdrnd - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM
EN - 03 February 2018 12:03 PM
jdrnd - 02 February 2018 06:25 PM
EN - 02 February 2018 06:00 PM

A simulation is an intelligently designed computer program. There is not difference between a Universal Programmer and a “God”.

For one, we’re not part of a computer simulatation.

Secondly there is a big difference between a supernatural omniscient all powerful being and a computer simulation.
Answer this question! (said in a demanding way)
So if your imaginary being turned about to be a computer simulation would you still worship it?

Jeff, Jeff, you require so much work. God would not be the computer simulation.  God would be the one who programmed it.  And yes, if I came in contact with an intelligence that created the universe, I would be in awe of it (awe is my definition of “worship”).  And you don’t know if we are part of a simulation or not.  You continue to make claims you cannot back up. You continue to fire blanks. This possibility was raised by NASA scientists.  It did not come from me. Yes, it’s only a possibility. But you don’t know as much as the people who propose it.

EN EN EN,
The romantic in you has certainly come out in this thread.
Perhaps you area computer simulation, but I am no nt   nt nooot ntttt.

damn there is a gli glitch gli in my prog prog [rporam.
help I am am am am am am  


blank

Please rewrite this code to prove you are a person:  A2P5bbjrnd123

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2018 12:53
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:14 PM
jdrnd - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM
EN - 03 February 2018 12:03 PM
jdrnd - 02 February 2018 06:25 PM
EN - 02 February 2018 06:00 PM

A simulation is an intelligently designed computer program. There is not difference between a Universal Programmer and a “God”.

For one, we’re not part of a computer simulatation.

Secondly there is a big difference between a supernatural omniscient all powerful being and a computer simulation.
Answer this question! (said in a demanding way)
So if your imaginary being turned about to be a computer simulation would you still worship it?

Jeff, Jeff, you require so much work. God would not be the computer simulation.  God would be the one who programmed it.  And yes, if I came in contact with an intelligence that created the universe, I would be in awe of it (awe is my definition of “worship”).  And you don’t know if we are part of a simulation or not.  You continue to make claims you cannot back up. You continue to fire blanks. This possibility was raised by NASA scientists.  It did not come from me. Yes, it’s only a possibility. But you don’t know as much as the people who propose it.

EN EN EN,
The romantic in you has certainly come out in this thread.
Perhaps you area computer simulation, but I am no nt   nt nooot ntttt.

damn there is a gli glitch gli in my prog prog [rporam.
help I am am am am am am  


blank

Please rewrite this code to prove you are a person:  A2P5bbjrnd123


bot this is difficult to do
b13P5bBjRnd666

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6565
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 13:50
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM
Jefe - 03 February 2018 08:12 AM
EN - 02 February 2018 05:17 PM

So, is 50/50 the appropriate probability?

Not even close.
You may be conflating binary yes/no answer with a 50/50 probability when that is not necessarily the case (almost certainly not the case, when considering the existence of (a) god(s).)  Not all binary questions have a 50/50 probability for each answer, in fact, many of them have highly spread probabilities between each answer.

I’m not conflating anything, Jefe.  Here is what I said: “What is the probability that “God” exists? Assume that “God” means some form of Creator (no particular denomination).  How to figure the probability?  Impossible. We don’t know what is required to bring a universe into being. The possibilities are “a creator is not needed” and “a creator is needed”.  So, is 50/50 the appropriate probability?  Hard to say.  We simply don’t have enough knowledge to determine what is required.

You position the binary in your question (yes/no) next to the 50/50 which is a different conversation in a different language.
Makes it look like you either don’t understand the distinction, or are intentionally hedging the binary as equal to the false equivalency. /shrug

Only you really know what your intentions are.  All I can do is comment on the structure and composition of your words.

EN - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM

I mentioned 50% just because either there is or there isn’t intelligence at the foundation of the universe.  But the probability is absolutely unknown to anyone.

This supports my comment above. The binary nature of the yes/no proposition does not equate to 50% in probabilistic terms, and verges onto the turf of a false equivalency in conception or understanding.

[ Edited: 03 February 2018 13:56 by Jefe]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6565
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 13:54
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:11 PM

In reality, figuring the probability is impossible. When Vegas sets odds on the Super Bowl or the Kentucky Derby, they have lots of history and lots of outcomes and lots of information to put into the formula.  With respect to God (intelligent creator, no particular flavor), we don’t have all that.

But we do.  Thousands of discarded mythologies that are no longer considered serious or relevant, but inside of which people had described experiences, levitations, Hosanahs, raptures, etc….  all related to their (now discarded) religious mythology.  The ‘probability’ of current monotheistic mythologies being any less ‘made-up’ than previously discarded faiths is what?  50/50?

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14802
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
03 February 2018 14:15
 
ubique13 - 03 February 2018 10:49 AM
Jefe - 03 February 2018 08:12 AM

If we simply look at the size and composition of the cosmos itself (without presuming {a} god{s} ) the very vastness and nature of what we can and have observed does not suggest any form of supernatural creator or being guiding the structures and composition, and we {humanity, the 'divine creation'} are an insignificantly unnoticeable blip in a very remote and tiny portion of the backwaters of the ‘bubble’- which is not suggestive of our ‘centrality’ or ‘import’ to the cosmic space/time continuum. That would suggest the probabilities for the truth of mythologies positioning humanity a the ‘center’ are way lower than 50/50.

IMO, god(s) and supernatural mythology are simply constructs of our cognitive engineering.  Our brain has evolved toward functions that excel at making up stories, internalizing conversations, anthropomorphizing, and projecting - along with deluding, fooling us, over-empathizing, building biases, altering our memories simply by recalling them, making mistakes, and doubling-down even when presented with conflicting/contradictory information.

By my own estimation, Jefe’s probability of being completely accurate is about 1/1. Bonus points for effort and style.


I’d say 1/.999.

And I’m also gonna claim I said precisely the same thing in under 69 words just prior to that post.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6565
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2018 14:16
 
SkepticX - 03 February 2018 02:15 PM

And I’m also gonna claim I said precisely the same thing in under 69 words just prior to that post.

Showoff!  wink

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14802
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
03 February 2018 14:20
 
Jefe - 03 February 2018 02:16 PM
SkepticX - 03 February 2018 02:15 PM

And I’m also gonna claim I said precisely the same thing in under 69 words just prior to that post.

Showoff!  wink


Heh ... just complimenting myself.

I’ve got to take them where I can make them.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9213
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
03 February 2018 14:51
 
EN - 03 February 2018 12:05 PM
Skipshot - 02 February 2018 10:19 PM
EN - 02 February 2018 05:17 PM

What is the probability that “God” exists?

God is made up, so the probability is zero.

You don’t know that, Skip.  You can’t just assume the very point in question and then rearrange the problem to fit your answer.

I did not do it, you did, and it has been pointed out by others.

EN - 03 February 2018 12:05 PM

Intelligence at the foundation of the universe is a real possibility, so the probability cannot be zero.

This is an assumption, not a possibility.  Don’t do this, because then you must give every assumption a ranking of possibility, including the Butt Fairy, and without a way to test an assumption there is no way to assign a probability, so the probability remains zero.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17001
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 February 2018 17:30
 

Late to the thread, but you boys handled it beautifully!

 

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2018 20:21
 
GAD - 03 February 2018 05:30 PM

Late to the thread, but you boys handled it beautifully!

 

or as En suggested, the handling of the premise of the opening post could just be a simulation.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  862
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
04 February 2018 00:49
 
SkepticX - 03 February 2018 02:20 PM
Jefe - 03 February 2018 02:16 PM
SkepticX - 03 February 2018 02:15 PM

And I’m also gonna claim I said precisely the same thing in under 69 words just prior to that post.

Showoff!  wink


Heh ... just complimenting myself.

I’ve got to take them where I can make them.

Hey man, credit where credit is due. I can totally appreciate being a little redundant.

jdrnd - 03 February 2018 08:21 PM
GAD - 03 February 2018 05:30 PM

Late to the thread, but you boys handled it beautifully!

 

or as En suggested, the handling of the premise of the opening post could just be a simulation.

“The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the Matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.”

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >