chance and us

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

chance and us

Postby Jakob » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:14 pm

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.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: chance and us

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:04 am

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.

I answered a question on Yahoo! Answers quite recently, to the extent of "Who wants to live forever?". It appears most people, of the people who answered that question of course (which were quite a lot), did not want to live much longer than a century or so, because then they'd lose all their friends and they'd be "all alone". Of course, when you live that long, even though there may be younger people around, those will not be able to relate to you a lot (though it may be asked whether one's natural contemporaries are). It creates a pathos of distance, to speak with Nietzsche. And distance, or solitude, is more horrible to these people than death (which is in line with Nietzsche's saying that solitude really probes whether one is made for life or for death).
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: chance and us

Postby GuyNamedJohn » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:44 am

I believe the notion that exceptional longevity would be deleterious to mental well-being or lead to social isolation is quite flawed unless of course that notion is applied to the individual alone. As the surrounding populace began to exceed 100, so too would all lineages fall in line.

Even in the event of an individual "out-living all he knows" or those with whom he grew up, assuming fantastic health and a continued social vigor, there is simply no reason new friends cannot be made, one's great-grands cannot become one's new family.

It is called... Change. Loss. New birth. And each of these challenges is part and parcel of any lifetime, no matter its longevity.
It matters more what is original than a quote from some old sage wh- Oh wait, nothing is really original except for me. :D
GuyNamedJohn
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Re: chance and us

Postby GuyNamedJohn » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:58 am

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.

Who cares about the Sun eating the Earth by that time. You're gonna die anyway.


Not necessarily, and you CAN escape a dying universe - but that is astrophysics and quantum physics right there - quite another subject. :)

-GNJ-
It matters more what is original than a quote from some old sage wh- Oh wait, nothing is really original except for me. :D
GuyNamedJohn
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Re: chance and us

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:29 am

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.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: chance and us

Postby Jakob » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:58 pm

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.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: chance and us

Postby Jakob » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:05 pm

GuyNamedJohn wrote: you CAN escape a dying universe - but that is astrophysics and quantum physics right there - quite another subject. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSr1pozm6Y
This guy can probably escape a dying universe.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby d0rkyd00d » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:10 pm

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
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Postby Phaedrus » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:57 pm

We're all alone anyways. I would love to live to the ripe old age of 1,000,000,000 years. Assuming I was in vigorous health- not a broken down old man doomed to spend 999,999,950 years in a nursing home. :wink:

BTW, the sun should have at least a couple billion years of useful (to us) life still.
Image

If your abilities are merely mediocre, modesty is mere honesty; but if you possess great talents, it is hypocrisy- Schopenhauer

Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me- Nietzsche

I drank what? :o - Socrates
User avatar
Phaedrus
Stoned and Dethroned
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:18 am
Location: In the Ether

Re: chance and us

Postby Membrain » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:35 am

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-

Hahahaha! =D>
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Re: chance and us

Postby Membrain » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:40 am

Jakob wrote: ...if you could live to be a billion, would you want it?

Yes. Ever see the movie "Groundhog Day"? It just depends on how you live your life.

You could become an expert musician, artist, mathematician, you name it.
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby GuyNamedJohn » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 am

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.


Dork, people are expressing chance here, I believe, as a percentage of likelihood, not debating the likelihood itself. Therefore, it must be expressed as a percentage unless you want to change the fundamentals of our discussion. And that percentage of course is the full 100%. The fact that "it happened some way" merely proves space-time came into existence "some way" and reflects no likelihood on anything else.

-GNJ-
It matters more what is original than a quote from some old sage wh- Oh wait, nothing is really original except for me. :D
GuyNamedJohn
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Postby d0rkyd00d » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:20 pm

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.
"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years." -Robert Ingersoll

"My "faith," if truly I have any, is in the idea that methodically applied science increases our knowledge of the Universe." -Phaedrus
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Postby GuyNamedJohn » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:43 pm

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-
It matters more what is original than a quote from some old sage wh- Oh wait, nothing is really original except for me. :D
GuyNamedJohn
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:56 pm

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-


But in that case you could argue that beforehand, the chance is allready 100%, but you simply don't know it yet.
Change is a weird thing. A friend of mine is amazing with dice - we were playing Risk once, and he said; shit, I feel a bad streak coming, this is going to be scary - and he rolled three ones for eleven cosecutive times.
But of course that's not pure chance.
By the way, I think the fact that statistics are so neat and clean - of 1000 tosses almost exactly half will be heads - means that there really is no such thing as randomness. all is orderly in the end, only it apears random because it's fragmented. 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.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Tristan » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:12 pm

everything didn't have a start, and it won't have an end. The only factor in my novice mind could have been sometime in the infinite lifespan of the universe is, maybe, newton's basic laws for how objects behave, which arranged things in the only way they possible; this way.

It seemed like a good idea while I was writting it, but after I finished and reread it, it seemed like jibberish. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Last edited by Tristan on Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tristan
Thinker
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:06 am

Postby Membrain » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:13 pm

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.

I think the mistake being made is the subjective/objective confusion.

Subjectively, we percieve chance and odds and randomness, and there are endless examples of this.

Objectively, everything is as it should be. When you flip that coin, an infinite history of physics is being acted out. The outcome can no more be altered than the (objective) laws of physics themselves. This is a hard concept to grasp: the movement of the coin, connected via physics, to the big bang and beyond.

It is the objective perspective that sees things as unalterable.

So I would say that those arguing that the odds are "100%" are speaking about objective reality, and those saying that the odds are "0.01-to-the-negative-trillionth-power" are speaking about our subjective perception of reality. Both are correct within their context! :D

Did I help or make things worse?
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby GuyNamedJohn » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:24 pm

Jakob wrote:But in that case you could argue that beforehand, the chance is allready 100%, but you simply don't know it yet.

Exactly. Which is why you couldn't argue that: You'd have to know the future.

Only after an event has actualized does become "a sure thing." :D

"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."

I think it is just as possible; it's just extraordinarily less likely the more extreme your example, for such is the nature of odds.
It matters more what is original than a quote from some old sage wh- Oh wait, nothing is really original except for me. :D
GuyNamedJohn
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Virginia, U.S.A.

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:43 pm

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."


That is silly - there are many ways in which 1000 throws can amount to 500 heads, and only one way in which they amount to 1000. Sorry about that.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby d0rkyd00d » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:16 pm

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%).


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.
"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years." -Robert Ingersoll

"My "faith," if truly I have any, is in the idea that methodically applied science increases our knowledge of the Universe." -Phaedrus
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Postby Membrain » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:14 pm

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.

But anyway, I'll just reiterate that subjectively the odds of us arriving where we are are astronomical. I agree. Actually, I think everone agrees that the odds from a human-perspective point of view are astronomical.

I just wanted to point out that the argument comes from those talking about objective reality. That's all. 8-[
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby d0rkyd00d » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:23 pm

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.
"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years." -Robert Ingersoll

"My "faith," if truly I have any, is in the idea that methodically applied science increases our knowledge of the Universe." -Phaedrus
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Postby Membrain » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:48 pm

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.
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby d0rkyd00d » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:07 pm

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.


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. :P
"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years." -Robert Ingersoll

"My "faith," if truly I have any, is in the idea that methodically applied science increases our knowledge of the Universe." -Phaedrus
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Postby Membrain » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:21 pm

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. :P

Nah, it's easy! Take football scores:

They are completely abstract (and subjective):

A team scores a touchdown and they get 6 points. "6" is added to their previous score on the score board.

Why is it 6 points? No reason. It could be 10 points, but we've decided it's 6.

And what is a "point"? No one knows. It has no objective existence. It's just an abstract concept that we use to create our scores.

So when you go to a game everyone is accepting this math that is completely abstract and subjective.

Simple, yes? (or are you just tired of this topic?)
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: peacegirl