Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

Aesops Fables.

Aesops Fables?

[Sordid]

Aesops Fables.

Aesops Fables?

Aesops Fables!

[LegoLord]

There is also a third question, how likely is this hypothesis based on what I already know. From that you set how much evidence is required for the hypothesis to be accepted and, conversely, how much skepticism needs to be applied to it. With gods, that threshold is pretty damn high.

To answer: a lot of things are pretty unlikely.  Consider how often life is known to occur and develop to the point we are at;  there is probably a point in the universe from which no life could be detected, assuming there was something there that could sense what we sense without being alive.  There, those non-living things could argue about how unlikely it is for a mixture of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., to develop into automotons on its own into intelligent life over the course of millenniums, and one could say that since it is so unlikely, the possibility of it ever happening should be dismissed.

The truth is that if you dismiss everything that goes beyond a certain level of unlikelihood, then you must deny our own existence.

Also, does a metaphor have to be fake?  Does it being a metaphor automatically dismiss any truth behind it?

[Ampersand]

What is the probability of the universe turning out the way it is now from the beginning of the universe to now, roughly 13 billion years?

The probability is 1:1, because it DID turn out this way. Retrospective probability is meaningless.

[LegoLord]

What is the probability of the universe turning out the way it is now from the beginning of the universe to now, roughly 13 billion years?

The probability is 1:1, because it DID turn out this way. Retrospective probability is meaningless.

But what is the possibility of it happening again?  What were the chances of it happening in the first place?  What are the chances of another planet developing intelligent life (and by that, I mean, that if you pick a random planet, that planet will do as stated)?  Saying that suggests all of existence is on a fixed route, and that all statistics are meaningless, or it suggests that every planet will have intelligent life develop because ours did.

Why is retrospective probability meaningless?  If, at the time, it was not certain to happen, then the probability was not 1:1.  By some unlikely chance, a chain of unconnected events sparked the beginning of evolution and influenced it to the point where we were created.  So, what are the chances of things happening exactly as they have here happening somewhere else?

[MrWiggles]

Aesops Fables.

Aesops Fables?

Aesops Fables!

Oh! Aesops Fables, that where I went wrong. Thanks guys.

[Ampersand]

Retrospective probability is meaningless because the reason things are the way they are is not random chance, but by the natural progression of a sequence of events. Change the events, you get a different outcome, sure, but then, those people, whatever they are, in their different universe look back and ask the same question, and wonder how amazing it is that the world came about to be the way it is then.

It is meaningless because it already happened. There isn't a reason that a coin falls heads up. It just does. You don't then ask, what is the probability that the coin I just flipped was heads. The probability that it was heads is 1:1, because it WAS heads.

[MrWiggles]

To answer: a lot of things are pretty unlikely.  Consider how often life is known to occur and develop to the point we are at;  there is probably a point in the universe from which no life could be detected, assuming there was something there that could sense what we sense without being alive.  There, those non-living things could argue about how unlikely it is for a mixture of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., to develop into automotons on its own into intelligent life over the course of millenniums, and one could say that since it is so unlikely, the possibility of it ever happening should be dismissed.

Life isn't unlikely. Life is eventual. Sapient Life, doubly so. I draw that on how we aren't the only sapient life on our small, ubiquitous rock. On how the rules work for reality, life happens.

We can draw this conclusion with a basic grasp of the law of large numbers.

We can further draw this conclusion with a interment understanding of Drake Equation, the concessions holds that even with conservative figures placed in life of our ability or high is eventual.

We can also conclude life is eventual, as we're here. This is same respect the chances of the universe having the rules that allow for evolution and some form of abiogenses to happen.

The truth is that if you dismiss everything that goes beyond a certain level of unlikelihood, then you must deny our own existence.

As previously above, life isn't unlikely. Its eventual. Since I exist, and can demonstrate that human can exist, then it meat the criteria of evidence.

Also, does a metaphor have to be fake?  Does it being a metaphor automatically dismiss any truth behind it?

Metaphors aren't false or true. There stories to describe reality. They aren't stories of reality. They use  concept that person can grasp to help explain reality, in doing so the concept itself isn't apart of reality.

Metaphors aren't reality. Metaphors aren't truths. They're a descriptive tool use to convey ideas.

[MrWiggles]

Retrospective probability is meaningless because the reason things are the way they are is not random chance, but by the natural progression of a sequence of events. Change the events, you get a different outcome, sure, but then, those people, whatever they are, in their different universe look back and ask the same question, and wonder how amazing it is that the world came about to be the way it is then.

It is meaningless because it already happened. There isn't a reason that a coin falls heads up. It just does. You don't then ask, what is the probability that the coin I just flipped was heads. The probability that it was heads is 1:1, because it WAS heads.

Oddly, I already touch upon this with the puddle analogy as cleverly stated by Douglas Adams. May he be remember.

[MrWiggles]

If we extrapolate that metaphors are true, then it would have some very odd happening in reality.

Science, as its major weakness relies on metaphors to help us understand worlds that we can't experience readily with our five sense.

The atom.

The structure of an atom is a complicated mess.

When speaking to how electron valance orbit work, then seeing it portrayed a solar system help us grasp it. This doesn't make the structure of the atom an orbital system in actuality.

When speaking on to why solid objects can't be passed through then it helps to see the structure of the atom as electron cloud with the electrons in that various energetic 'orbits' occupy all possible points at once. Or seemingly at once.

But this view isn't any more correct then looking at the atom as a orbital. It just help use understand on how it works.

If God, is metaphorical, then he can't be real. He a tool to help us get a grasp of reality. And I'll state that god is /the/ worse presented metaphor ever.

[Osmosis Jones]

Don't mind me, this is mostly to get this thread on my "Unread replies" list.

However,

Retrospective probability is meaningless because the reason things are the way they are is not random chance, but by the natural progression of a sequence of events.

Current quantum theory puts a small spanner in that theory; it dictates certain happenings on a quantum level are dictated by constrained probabilities for things to occur, so while not completely random, chance does still play a role.
That being said, this is only the current model's interpretation, and there were proponents for deterministic theories (Einstein was the most well known of these).



Also, surely it is Aesops' fables? Or possibly even Aesop's?

[MrWiggles]

There is no consensus on which one holds the best descriptive power. The weaknesses with metaphors.

My favorite thus far is Transactional interpretation.

[Sordid]

To answer: a lot of things are pretty unlikely.  Consider how often life is known to occur and develop to the point we are at;

Well since we only know of one instance of life in the universe, and only one universe, that'd be one out of one, or always.

There is probably a point in the universe from which no life could be detected, assuming there was something there that could sense what we sense without being alive.  There, those non-living things could argue about how unlikely it is for a mixture of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., to develop into automotons on its own into intelligent life over the course of millenniums, and one could say that since it is so unlikely, the possibility of it ever happening should be dismissed.

Not really. The formation of a self-replicating molecule isn't that much of a stretch, and from there evolution takes over.

The truth is that if you dismiss everything that goes beyond a certain level of unlikelihood, then you must deny our own existence.

Obviously not.

Also, does a metaphor have to be fake?  Does it being a metaphor automatically dismiss any truth behind it?

It does dismiss the literal meaning. That's kind of, y'know, the definition of metaphor.
So yeah, you can say that God is a metaphor for nature, the laws of physics, whatever. But then you have nothing to build a religion around.

What are the chances of another planet developing intelligent life (and by that, I mean, that if you pick a random planet, that planet will do as stated)?

Infinitesimal. But with billions of galaxies, each containing billions of star systems.... yeah.

Don't mind me, this is mostly to get this thread on my "Unread replies" list.

Won't work for long.

However,

Retrospective probability is meaningless because the reason things are the way they are is not random chance, but by the natural progression of a sequence of events.

Current quantum theory puts a small spanner in that theory; it dictates certain happenings on a quantum level are dictated by constrained probabilities for things to occur, so while not completely random, chance does still play a role.
That being said, this is only the current model's interpretation, and there were proponents for deterministic theories (Einstein was the most well known of these).

Hm, I vaguely remember something about the future being increasingly random and unpredictable the further you go, but also so being the past, since the laws of physics work the same in both directions.

[Ampersand]

Yes, but only if we assume a high entropy past and a high entropy future, rather than a low entropy past and a high entropy future. But I won't get into the details or your heads and mine will melt.

[MrWiggles]

I would like to point out, that though Sorid answer and mine on life likelihood, though different are the same. Just to cut down on possible confusion. Unless Sorid disagrees. But if he did then that post is in the works or will be with this one.