Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Proof of the astronomical probability that You do not exist !

Proof of the astronomical probability that You do not exist !

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpcomsecurityhelpquestion
37 Posts 18 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B BillWoodruff

    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"

    K Offline
    K Offline
    Kenneth Haugland
    wrote on last edited by
    #5

    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

    L 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K Kenneth Haugland

      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

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #6

      See Bell's Inequality, and this[^]. It's not just that we don't know enough to do a real prediction, the outcome really is random.

      M K M 3 Replies Last reply
      0
      • B BillWoodruff

        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"

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Mark_Wallace
        wrote on last edited by
        #7

        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!

        B L 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          See Bell's Inequality, and this[^]. It's not just that we don't know enough to do a real prediction, the outcome really is random.

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Mark_Wallace
          wrote on last edited by
          #8

          You obviously go to different casinos than those I've visited.

          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

          K M 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • M Mark_Wallace

            You obviously go to different casinos than those I've visited.

            I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

            K Offline
            K Offline
            Kenneth Haugland
            wrote on last edited by
            #9

            Casinos are illegal in this country so you see why I think as I do :laugh:

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K Kenneth Haugland

              Casinos are illegal in this country so you see why I think as I do :laugh:

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Mark_Wallace
              wrote on last edited by
              #10

              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!

              K 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                See Bell's Inequality, and this[^]. It's not just that we don't know enough to do a real prediction, the outcome really is random.

                K Offline
                K Offline
                Kenneth Haugland
                wrote on last edited by
                #11

                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?

                L 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Mark_Wallace

                  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!

                  K Offline
                  K Offline
                  Kenneth Haugland
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #12

                  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:

                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • K Kenneth Haugland

                    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?

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #13

                    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.

                    K N 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      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.

                      K Offline
                      K Offline
                      Kenneth Haugland
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #14

                      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:

                      9 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • K Kenneth Haugland

                        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:

                        M Offline
                        M Offline
                        Mark_Wallace
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #15

                        You're right. Elegance is simplicity.

                        I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                        K A 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • M Mark_Wallace

                          You're right. Elegance is simplicity.

                          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                          K Offline
                          K Offline
                          Kenneth Haugland
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #16

                          Love and hate are simple feelings, however the results are sadly often not elegant ;)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L Lost User

                            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.

                            N Offline
                            N Offline
                            Nelek
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #17

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L Lost User

                              See Bell's Inequality, and this[^]. It's not just that we don't know enough to do a real prediction, the outcome really is random.

                              M Offline
                              M Offline
                              Mladen Jankovic
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #18

                              And for some reason people will always have hard time accepting this.

                              Commodore 64 emulator for Windows Phone

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • B BillWoodruff

                                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"

                                B Offline
                                B Offline
                                BillWoodruff
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #19

                                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"

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • B BillWoodruff

                                  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"

                                  R Offline
                                  R Offline
                                  Ron Anders
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #20

                                  Cool. later.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • M Mark_Wallace

                                    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!

                                    B Offline
                                    B Offline
                                    BillWoodruff
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #21

                                    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"

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • M Mark_Wallace

                                      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!

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      Lost User
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #22

                                      Mark_Wallace wrote:

                                      Before the beginning of the universe,

                                      But there was no before ...

                                      PooperPig - Coming Soon

                                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • L Lost User

                                        Mark_Wallace wrote:

                                        Before the beginning of the universe,

                                        But there was no before ...

                                        PooperPig - Coming Soon

                                        M Offline
                                        M Offline
                                        Mark_Wallace
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #23

                                        Sure there was. We totally unimportant creatures on a totally unimportant world in a totally unimportant solar system in a totally unimportant arm of a totally unimportant galaxy in a totally unimportant tiny region of the universe don't know what it was like, but the universe doesn't care about our opinion, because it's totally unimportant.

                                        I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                                        L 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • M Mark_Wallace

                                          Sure there was. We totally unimportant creatures on a totally unimportant world in a totally unimportant solar system in a totally unimportant arm of a totally unimportant galaxy in a totally unimportant tiny region of the universe don't know what it was like, but the universe doesn't care about our opinion, because it's totally unimportant.

                                          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                                          L Offline
                                          L Offline
                                          Lost User
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #24

                                          Mark_Wallace wrote:

                                          totally unimportant creatures

                                          Speak for yourself ;) Depends if the single-big-bang theory is true, really. If Time started with the big bang, then the very concept of 'before' cannot exist.

                                          PooperPig - Coming Soon

                                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups