Cubist
Posts: 363 Joined: Oct. 2007

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)  My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100) 
Sure—for any one instance of Flipping 100 Coins, the odds of getting 100 heads is, indeed, going to be 1:2^{100}. Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads? Quote  But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant. 
True if you're talking about a oneshot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities. The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1  p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1  p)^{N}. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1  (1  p)^{N}). Quote  It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same. 
If all you're interested in is the probability that Event E occurs during any one opportunity for Event E to occur, then sure, you're right about the math being the same. But if you're interested in the probability that Event E will ever occur during any of N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the math is not the same. Quote  BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system. 
Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it. The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI. Of course, if CSI genuinely is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, it follows that CSI is utterly and completely irrelevant to any whatzit which did not occur all at once, in a single stroke… Quote  Quote  I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (^{1}/_{2})^{100}, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you? 
Of course not. Your logic is faulty here… 
For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you represent the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for representing friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated. Quote  What system am I studying or calculatingthe 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different. 
Yes, the specific details of the system you're studying are very relevant indeed to calculating the probability of that system's having yielded some particular result. So if you're interested in the probability of unguided abiogenesis having occurred, how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario? Quote  Quote  If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is ^{1,023}/_{1/024}, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (^{1,023}/_{1,024})^{100}. Which is a summat different kettle of fish… 
I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done? 
We've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the specific details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Given a Process P1 that involves oddsofheads of 1:2, and a different Process P2 that involves oddsofheads of 1023:1024, the probability of getting 100 heads will vary dramatically, depending on whether the process by which you got 100 heads is Process P1, or Process P2, or some entirely different Process P3 whose oddsofheads differs from the oddsofheads of either Process P1 or Process P2, or what. Quote  We have added intelligence into the system. 
No, we've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. If intelligence happens to be one of the details in question, then sure, intelligence can affect the probability of Event E's occurring—but that doesn't alter the fact that in general, even when intelligence is not one of the details in question, the probability of some Event E having occurred is dependent on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Quote  Quote  Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. 
That's not correct… don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician… 
Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician? Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud. But even if I accept your risible mischaracterization of Dembski as a 'mathematician', that does not make him a statistician. Since you said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added], one would hope that you would take care to, like, cite only statisticians in support of your assertion about what statisticians had "concluded through Borel’s Law". But hey, if you want to make IDiots look like idiots, do feel free to continue screwing up! Quote  …and I named a few others including Borel. 
Since "Borel's Law" doesn't actually say what you Creationists claim it says, you can name Borel all you want and it won't make any difference; you're still bullshitting. You also named Brewster and Morris, and you ignored my question: "How did Brewster and Morris come up with this '10^{67}' figure?" Since, you know, the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E, it would be very interesting indeed to know the specific details Brewster and Morris were assuming when they calculated their putative "ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happenanytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years". Quote  Quote  If you shuffle a standard 52card deck and deal out all the cards faceup, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*10^{68} possible 52card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular cardsequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*10^{68}). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'. 
This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.
You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. 
Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here. After I deal out the first card, there are (52  1 =) 51 cards left, so whatever Card #2 is, the chance that that card came up must be 1:51, and the chance of that particular 2card sequence must be (1:52 * 51 =) 1:2,652. Again, if I'm wrong here, do inform me of where my error lies. After I deal out the second card, there are (52  2 = ) 50 cards, so whatever Card #3 is, its probability of coming up must be 1:50. Thus, the chance of that particular 3card sequence coming up must be (1:52 * 51 * 50 =) 1:132,600. Similarly, the chance of any one 4card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 =) 1:6,497,400; the chance of any one 5card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 =) 1:311,875,200; the chance of any one 6card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 =) 1:14,658,134,400; and so on, until the chance of any one 52card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * … * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 =) 1:80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000
. Quote  Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least. 
If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52card deck? Quote  Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities. 
So… if I shuffle a standard 52card deck, and I don't write down which card I expect to come up first… whatever that first card is, I can't say that the odds of that card having come up, are 1:52? Hmm. By this 'reasoning', it's not possible to work out the odds of abiogenesis if you haven't previously nailed down the specific details of abiogenesis. Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see! Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting. Quote  Quote  I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary lifeform was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary lifeform was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of selfreproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life. 
I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins? If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium… 
What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it? Quote  And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that. 
The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary lifeform was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.
