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.
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-
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.
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.
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?
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! 
Did I help or make things worse?
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.”
“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.
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.
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. 
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. 
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?)
Simple enough, but i’m not convinced that it proves mathematics is subjective. I definitely understand that we can use these numbers to represent quantities of imaginary objects, but the subjectivity disappears in that there are set rules in math that are followed, and they do not change relative to what we are working with.
Da man has a point. 
It would be impossible to describe subjectivity without relativity, math is not relative. That’s the point i’m trying to make.
I’ll take another stab at it. But first, we should recognize that we are just establishing definitions. Your definitions are just as valid as mine, it’s just that some definitions can create ambiguities and contradictions if they aren’t “tight”.
My definition of subjectivity = anything human.
By this I mean, anything taken in by a human, and anything put out by a human (of which math would be one).
And objectivity = the truth inherent in the object (having no human involvement whatsoever).
I believe that there is an “objective math” that exists and I believe that some of our subjective math approximates it. But I consider 100% of the math created by humans as “subjective”. It’s my (and others) definition.
Ya see, as soon as we say “humans created something objective” then the definition of “subjective” doesn’t mean anything any more. It is untrue and the definitions clash. Making subjective=with-human and objective=with-out-human makes the definitions separate and non-contradicting. That’s why I prefer this definition. It’s tight.
Hai.