Re: Science of choices falls out of research

In article <1146307081.677828.64940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andre G. Isaak wrote:

So basically you're just saying that to you "choice" means simply that
"something unpredictable happens". That unpredictable things happen is
something that science is well aware of. Why you claim they ignore this,
then, is beyond me, unless, of course, your only complaint is that the
rest of the world refuses to adopt your idiosyncratic use of English
words.

Gee, after you have consistently tried to remove unpredictable things
in relation to choice in posts previous, and don't offer any
description whatsoever of any unpredictability, blatantly deny that
changes in probability take place, now you contend that science is
actually in support of unpredictability all along.

I never denied that changes in probability take place, nor did I ever
deny that many events are unpredictable. You, however, are taking
measures of probabilities to be something which they are not. As far as
I can tell you want to somehow localise these into an object or entity
rather than recognising them as measures of uncertainty on the part of
an observer which stems from an incomplete knowledge of a situation.

The problem is that you are dishonest in talking about it. You are not
trying to get at the facts of the matter, you are trying to destroy.
This can be well shown in your response to me having mentioned God
once. Then you come up with paragraph after paragraph of insincere
philosophizing which only means to destroy knowledge.

Can you please offer an example of somewhere where I have been trying to
'destroy knowledge'.

The facts of the matter are simple, probabilities change, probabilities
have alternative results, a decision is the point where the probability
changes or is resolved, a decision has a location, at this location is
nothing etc.

This makes no sense to me. Consider the following example:

Let's say I shuffle a deck of 52 cards and lay it face down on the
table. I then begin remove cards from the top of the deck, one at a
time, and each time I ask myself the question: "what is the probability
that the last card which I remove from the deck will be the ace of
diamonds?". Before I remove the topmost card, the probability will be be
around .019. If the first card I remove turns out to be the jack of
clubs, and then ask myself the same question, that probability goes up
to around .020. If, on the other hand, the first card I remove turns out
to be the ace of diamonds, the probablility that the last card will be
the ace drops to zero. According to your view, this entails that a
*choice* has been made (either by me or the deck -- it isn't clear
which), but nothing in my actions, or the decks actions, has caused the
order of cards to change in any way. On that particular deal, the last
card had to be whatever the last card was. The random event here was the
dealing of the cards, and this event was unconnected to the change in
probabilities, and yet you somehow want to equate these two and call
them a 'choice'. Explain to me, in the above example, where the 'choice'
occurs.

It would of course be useless to say that the owner of a choice is a
material thing, because when looking at the choice, we find merely a
location at which is nothing. So it is just reasonable honesty for
religionists, by their own experience as being the owner of their
choices, to say that the owner's of choices are spiritual, and not
material.

Isn't it true that at the center of the probability distribution of an
electron around an atom, the center of the nucleus, that we find
nothing, a zeropoint?

I don't understand either of the two preceding paragraphs at all.

Well I never checked it, I'm just guessing, but it's a reasonable
guess.

Well, that at least partially explains it then.

So you see, all this creationism is perfectly reasonable, and
Darwinist science of love, and choices without possible alternatives,
is evidently opposed to reason.

Again, I don't follow this. Your and my definitions of reasonable
apparently do not correspond.

Andre

--
Andre G. Isaak
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Science of choices falls out of research
    ... something that science is well aware of. ... actually in support of unpredictability all along. ... a decision is the point where the probability ... You don't know reason. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science of choices falls out of research
    ... something that science is well aware of. ... actually in support of unpredictability all along. ... a decision is the point where the probability ... is evidently opposed to reason. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A card game probability
    ... Here bar p_n is just a notation. ... If it troubles you, just denote it by another symbol, say q_n. ... Denote by Prthe conditional probability of an event A given ... The card flipped in the n-th trial matches its pair. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Deal or no Deal
    ... reality (about which you may get more information as the boxes are ... The probability it is black is 0.5 ... the less likely that the card you have is ... they came from a pack with equal reds and blacks and ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Deal or no Deal
    ... reality (about which you may get more information as the boxes are ... The probability it is black is 0.5 ... the less likely that the card you have is ... they came from a pack with equal reds and blacks and ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)