Jakob wrote:I think we've done pretty good, for pure coincidence. I may still make the occasional grammatical slipup, but this is not even my native language.
Language - who'd have thought? From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome? I'd bet money on this horse.
What I'm saying is - if this is possible from that, what is possible from this? Hard to grasp. Impossible to grasp. It's a shame I'm not going to be around for another billion years or so. I should be able to find a way for that to be possible. I'm part of nature. I'm supposed to be inventive enough. Seriously, all philosophies wisdom that death is part of life and a source of great sweet richness aside, if you could live to be a billion, would you want it? I mean who cares about the Sun eating the Earth by that time. You're gonna die anyway.
It's just cowardice that we've not invented that potion. I'm not falling for this story of being grateful for what I am anymore. If the uiverse had been grateful for what it was when it was a giant blorb, I'd sure as hell not be grateful to <i>it</i>.
I read a story about a Kaukasian tribe where people generally lived to be around 250 years old. When they heard about the 'proper' average age, they started dying earlier. We should probably revise our standards.
Jakob wrote:From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Who cares about the Sun eating the Earth by that time. You're gonna die anyway.
GuyNamedJohn wrote:Jakob wrote:From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The changes are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
Sauwelios wrote:GuyNamedJohn wrote:Jakob wrote:From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The changes are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
Indeed; good point.
GuyNamedJohn wrote: you CAN escape a dying universe - but that is astrophysics and quantum physics right there - quite another subject.
Jakob wrote:
From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The changes are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
GuyNamedJohn wrote:Jakob wrote:From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The chances are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
-GNJ-
Jakob wrote: ...if you could live to be a billion, would you want it?
Jakob wrote:Sauwelios wrote:GuyNamedJohn wrote:Jakob wrote:From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The changes are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
Indeed; good point.
You watch your attitude young man!! That's 200%! You pantsies!!!!. 300%!! Ar least!!! 50 pushups, right there in the mud!!!!
Yes. Well. But I'm still right. About most things.
d0rkyd00d wrote:Jakob wrote:
From an explosion of raw energy to me sitting here typing about it - what are the chances of such an outcome?
Hey Jakob,
The changes are in fact 100% because we did come about; we are here.
No, the chances of this outcome are one in an infinite number. The key is to remember that it's not amazing it happened this way, because it had to happen some way.
d0rkyd00d wrote:Simply because it already happened doesn't change the likelihood of it happening..
GuyNamedJohn wrote:d0rkyd00d wrote:Simply because it already happened doesn't change the likelihood of it happening..
Then that is where we can disagree. The fact that an event has actualized forever changes its potential of happening. In the coin-toss example, the materialization altars the potential: What has now become (100%) is no longer in the realm of chance (<100%).
-GNJ-
d0rkyd00d wrote:GuyNamedJohn, I disagree. The chances of things turning out this way, even as a percentage, is ridiculously small. There was no 100% chance it would turn out this way. I understand that it IS this way, but it could have been an infinite number of other ways. Simply because it already happened doesn't change the likelihood of it happening.
Let's suppose you are flipping a coin. There is 50% chance it is heads, and 50% chance it is tails. If it lands on heads, you cannot say that it was a 100% chance it would land on heads, simply because we know the results of the coin flip. The odds were always 50/50, they don't change once the result materializes.
Jakob wrote:But in that case you could argue that beforehand, the chance is allready 100%, but you simply don't know it yet.
Jakob wrote:"If there really would be randomness it would be as likely to throw 1000 out of 1000 times heads as it would to be throw 500 out of 1000 heads."
The fact that an event has actualized forever changes its potential of happening. In the coin-toss example, the materialization altars the potential: What has now become (100%) is no longer in the realm of chance (<100%).
d0rkyd00d wrote:Then this would be different than discussing odds or probability. Odds and probability don't change. Just because an outcome is actualized doesn't change the odds or probability of it happening.
I am responding to what the chances of this happening are. For the odds, probability, or chance of the outcome being what it has become, it is an almost infinite number.
I am talking about odds and probability in the mathematical sense of the word, which I guess would be objective membrain.
Math is very subjective. It can exist completely outside of objective reality.
d0rkyd00d wrote:Math is very subjective. It can exist completely outside of objective reality.
Hrm....what do you mean by this?
It seems more accurate to state that reality is very subjective, but math is objective within our reality.
Membrain wrote:d0rkyd00d wrote:Math is very subjective. It can exist completely outside of objective reality.
Hrm....what do you mean by this?
It seems more accurate to state that reality is very subjective, but math is objective within our reality.
I'm no mathematician, but apparently they can make up all sorts of equations that are not connected to reality. For example, I believe the process can involve creating axioms and axioms can be anything. I believe it's kind of an "if...then" kind of arrangement.
An example:
axioms:
A = wings let you fly
B = elephants have wings
then:
then A+B=C
C = elephants can fly
This is valid math (I think, remember I'm just trying my best here), but it is not true in objective reality.
So A+B=C is limited in meaning without a subjective context. Does that make sense?
To further define "subjective": subjective is by definition anything a person thinks or feels. That's the definition of it.
"Objective" means reality as it actually is regardless of our subjective perceptions of it.
So every "thing" (not just math) that we create is by definition subjective. The goal usually being to try to make whatever our subjective creation is match objective reality.
d0rkyd00d wrote:This seems more like the language of logic rather than mathematics; however, if such equations do exist in the realms of differential equations and abstract math, it'd be beyond my expertise. I only went through Calc 2.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]