Proof of the astronomical probability that You do not exist !
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
Ah, the way statistics can manipulate reality. On the other hand, the probably that any human exists is 100% -- after all, humans exist. It's irrelevant to ask the probably that I exist because all those humans that exist are "I's" and the ones that don't are obviously "not I." In other words, you cannot have a human exist that is not an "I" (meaning, a unique individual to which we can say "you" to.) Silly statistics. :) Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
Like many before him, the author is confusing pre-hoc and post-hoc statistics. For example: The probability of a couple having four children, all sons, is 1 in 16. Given that they have three sons, the probability of them having a fourth is 1 in 2. In like manner: Given my remote ancestor, the probability of my future existence is very small. Given that I already exist (Cogito, ergo sum), the probability of my existence is 100%.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
I have a question then: Can you prove that randomness exist? Usually we use statistics to highlight areas that we don't truly know the cause and effect. But when you throw a dice, is it not just plain Newtonian physics at hand? So it is just the movements of your hand that is unknown, and therefor cause "random" outcomes? Can you prove that everything isn't deterministic? But you don't know all the stuff to make the calculations work, so you use probability? If I'm right, nothing else could have happened, and the probability that you got born is equal to 1. :-D
-
I have a question then: Can you prove that randomness exist? Usually we use statistics to highlight areas that we don't truly know the cause and effect. But when you throw a dice, is it not just plain Newtonian physics at hand? So it is just the movements of your hand that is unknown, and therefor cause "random" outcomes? Can you prove that everything isn't deterministic? But you don't know all the stuff to make the calculations work, so you use probability? If I'm right, nothing else could have happened, and the probability that you got born is equal to 1. :-D
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
The guy obviously hasn't figured out why statistical calculations are never done going backward: You always end up at the same starting point, which is zero. Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero, which is fair enough. But, since then, a lot of things have happened (I think it must be more than eleven), each one of which has increased the probability of everything being exactly as it is now. Ask the Bueller kid: If you prop your dad's sports car up on axle props and run it in reverse, the wheels may go backward, but the milometer remains exactly as it is. i.e. the probability of your father having met your mother remains at 100%; the probability of your grandparents having met remains at 100%, etc. Gawd! that's more than plenty serious discussion, for today. From the rest of the day, the probability of my postings being idiotic is at 120% (and rising!).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You obviously go to different casinos than those I've visited.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You obviously go to different casinos than those I've visited.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Casinos are illegal in this country so you see why I think as I do :laugh:
-
Casinos are illegal in this country so you see why I think as I do :laugh:
That's a good start. When they also ban politicians, accountants, insurance companies, lawyers, marketing morons, salesmen, and [anything]-evangelists, you can expect a call from me, to hit you up for temporary accommodation while I look for a house!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Well, I`'m non the wiser: Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables). Sounds to me like they can't really show cause and effect of anything with absolute certainty?
-
That's a good start. When they also ban politicians, accountants, insurance companies, lawyers, marketing morons, salesmen, and [anything]-evangelists, you can expect a call from me, to hit you up for temporary accommodation while I look for a house!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
When they also ban politicians, accountants, insurance companies, lawyers, marketing morons, salesmen, and [anything]-evangelists, you can expect a call from me, to hit you up for temporary accommodation while I look for a house!
:laugh:
-
Well, I`'m non the wiser: Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables). Sounds to me like they can't really show cause and effect of anything with absolute certainty?
-
Bell's theorem says that if there are hidden variables, they must be non-local. But non-local hidden variables communicate faster than the speed of light, which is bad.
I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of the words are, as per usual in these theorems. But it was said of QM that if you hit a tennis ball and infinite number of times on a wall it will at one point just pass through the wall. The theorem seem to say that QM can influence the result in any way? :doh:
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
When they also ban politicians, accountants, insurance companies, lawyers, marketing morons, salesmen, and [anything]-evangelists, you can expect a call from me, to hit you up for temporary accommodation while I look for a house!
:laugh:
You're right. Elegance is simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You're right. Elegance is simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Love and hate are simple feelings, however the results are sadly often not elegant ;)
-
Bell's theorem says that if there are hidden variables, they must be non-local. But non-local hidden variables communicate faster than the speed of light, which is bad.
harold aptroot wrote:
communicate faster than the speed of light,
Hey... like my GF ;P
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
And for some reason people will always have hard time accepting this.
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
My interpretation of the "reverse statistics" is not that they contradict any proof we do exist; rather that they contrarily confirm the 100% probability we do not exist is as improbable as the belief/experience/assertion that we do exist, and that what we do experience as our "existence" in what we belive is a one-way arrow of time is, in fact, a fiction of an astoundingly improbable miracle, as much an artifact of our symbiosis with the virus of language as anything else. Any pseudo-factoid that assists one to walk the razor's edge that never shaved Occam is, ergo, an entheogenic homeopathic remedy. To awake to that is to know Chuang Tzu's inner state at the moment he was not sure he was a butterfly dreaming he was a man, or a man dreaming he was a butterfly; it is to know what Dorothy speaks of when she said: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." In that moment the experience of both "butterfly-ness" and "human-ness" is never more crystal-clear, not to mention Kansas, red-slippers, etc. Which way is Capistrano ? I think I need to roost.
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
Cool. later.
-
The guy obviously hasn't figured out why statistical calculations are never done going backward: You always end up at the same starting point, which is zero. Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero, which is fair enough. But, since then, a lot of things have happened (I think it must be more than eleven), each one of which has increased the probability of everything being exactly as it is now. Ask the Bueller kid: If you prop your dad's sports car up on axle props and run it in reverse, the wheels may go backward, but the milometer remains exactly as it is. i.e. the probability of your father having met your mother remains at 100%; the probability of your grandparents having met remains at 100%, etc. Gawd! that's more than plenty serious discussion, for today. From the rest of the day, the probability of my postings being idiotic is at 120% (and rising!).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero,
I feel less alone knowing we share such humble beginnings. thanks, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
The guy obviously hasn't figured out why statistical calculations are never done going backward: You always end up at the same starting point, which is zero. Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero, which is fair enough. But, since then, a lot of things have happened (I think it must be more than eleven), each one of which has increased the probability of everything being exactly as it is now. Ask the Bueller kid: If you prop your dad's sports car up on axle props and run it in reverse, the wheels may go backward, but the milometer remains exactly as it is. i.e. the probability of your father having met your mother remains at 100%; the probability of your grandparents having met remains at 100%, etc. Gawd! that's more than plenty serious discussion, for today. From the rest of the day, the probability of my postings being idiotic is at 120% (and rising!).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
