Comments on: Which is More Likely?

By: miller

miller — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:53:24 +0000

I’m not Christian either, fyi. I just like math.

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:16:22 +0000

The Worst of Perth, if that’s meant for me, I don’t happen to be a Christian. Or a member of any other religion.

By: The Worst of Perth

The Worst of Perth — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:18:53 +0000

There’s no point arguing with christians. They’ll never get it.

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:44:39 +0000

miller, I don’t like the card deal as an analogy for the fine-tuning of physical constants for for the same reasons.

As someone who used to tune pianos as a side line, tuning consists of one intentional act after another. And, little known to most, a finely tuned piano isn’t “in tune” but he octaves are “stretched” to be ever so slightly out of tune, even the octaves. Equaltemperment isn’t “in tune” either but a slight alteration of the just intervals so they will all be about equally acceptable, though “out of tune”. “Fine-tuning” isn’t a good analogy for these things either.

The creation of the universe, evolution of life, these are sui generis. Analogies don’t work and will always lead away from the truth. Whatever that might be.

By: miller

miller — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:34:06 +0000

Aj,
Yes, the premise contains the conclusion. That’s the mark of a valid deductive argument, is it not? But, yes, a good objection to the argument is that we don’t actually have the numbers, or that the numbers are not nearly so big.

Olvlzl,
I think the cards aren’t supposed to be an analogy for evolution (and yes, that would be a horrible analogy), but for the fine-tuning of physical constants. You know, things like the masses of elementary particles.

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:49:24 +0000

Thinking about it more, the card game is entirely inadequate as an analogy for evolution. In playing cards any hand that happens to come up can be played, all of the evidence is that this isn’t true of how evolution happened. Every possible combination wouldn’t have worked the same way, many of them wouldn’t have evolved at all. You can see this on a micro-level with those organisms and, perhaps, species which didn’t work out. Some chance “deals” wouldn’t have gotten that far.

I’m beginning to think that something as complex as evolution doesn’t have an honest analogy.

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:55:32 +0000

Stephen, maybe it would be better to say that a hand defined as being similar to the second hand would be more likely.

In a really random deal every particular pattern would have the same chance of coming up, that is the objective definition. That two hands might seem to be similar isn’t objective. Analyzing the similarities of these two hands might reveal an enormous number of differences, including what can be considered to be patterns. It’s in the immediate perception that a particular hand has an easily identified pattern that its “likelihood” of coming up in any one deal is judged “unlikely”. It wouldn’t make any sense to bet that any one of them would come up if it was a random deal but it is more likely that a hand without a pattern you will recognize immediately will come up at any given time. That is due to our inability to quickly distinguish what we might take as patterns, not on the likelihood of them arising by chance.

I seem to recall reading an abstract of a paper that said it took seven shuffles to approach true randomness in a deal. But I’m too lazy to look it up right now. Um. Seven. The most magical number….. I wonder……

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:28:05 +0000

Context is very important when discussing probability arguments. To a bridge player deciding what to bid, the first hand is AKQJ10xxxxxxxx, while the second is Qxxx / Ax / KQxx / xxx

In the context of a bridge game it is entirely reasonable to say that the second hand is more likely.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:11:07 +0000

I agree that this analysis is flawed.

The actual probabilities of getting each hand are:

Probability of hand 1 = (probability of a designer)x(probability he provides hand 1)+(probability of no designer)x(probability of randomly getting hand 1)

Probability of hand 2 = (probability of a designer)x(probability he provides hand 2)+(probability of no designer)x(probability of randomly getting hand 2)

The probability of a designer plus the probability of no designer add up to 1. To arrive at the answer that the probability of both hands are equal, One Good Move has assumed that the probability of a designer=0 and the probability of no designer=1. You can’t prove anything about God starting from the assertion that God doesn’t exist. That’s not a proof; that’s an unproved assertion.

Now, if there’s a nonzero probability God exists then a lot of discussion could ensue on what sort of hand God is more likely to provide. However, we cannot assume randomness in his choice of hand so the argument of One Good Move that both hands are equally likely is invalidated.

By: Aj

Aj — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:38:46 +0000

Within the analogy of cards, let’s just say that we knew there is a .01% chance that someone is cheating (the cheater is analogous to an intelligent designer). And let’s say that if someone is cheating, we know there is a .01% chance that the first hand (ace through king of spades) would be dealt.

Doesn’t the premise contain the conclusion?