Re: The Hidden Harmony of the Universe

On Jan 20, 7:46 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 20, 10:55 am, Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 20, 2:28 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:33 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:15 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 19, 12:04 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 11:55 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:00:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Joseph Humming
<jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Jan 17, 10:29 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:47:04 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Joseph Humming
<jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Jan 16, 10:52 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:16:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Joseph Humming
<jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
...how can it happen that all the
various forces in nature managed to produce a coherent and stable
outcome? What are the chances of that?

There is exactly zero way to tell. A sample size of 1 does
not good statistical analysis make.

Hmmm. Avoiding the issue with a neat sidestep, Cas?

No, Joey, just pointing out that asking for the "chance" of
something happening, when we have a sample of exactly one
and no knowledge of the conditions which allowed that single
sample to come into existence, shows only that the one
asking is mathematically challenged. At least.

Sorry, sir, we don't have a sample of one; we have an outcome of one.

That "outcome" *is* the sample of one.

We have many particles producing a felicitous result. The question I'm
asking is what is the probability of this result as opposed to any, or
many, others?

....and that question cannot be answered, for the reasons I
stated. Take a couple of statistics course and learn why,
since you won't accept what anyone here says who actually
understands the subject.

I accept that it can't be answered. But perhaps it can be accepted
that the probability is very small. Just becuse we don't have a
precise number doesn't mean we can't recognise that the probability is
small.

I write a short computer program that may or may not use a random
number generator.  The first time it runs, it outputs the number 42.

To equate a short computer programme with the prodigious and
profligate event that is our universe is not helpful.

Oh, I disagree.  When you think about something as tiny and simple as
an unknown computer program, and the only thing you have to describe
it is a single output, it's obvious to you that you can make no
accurate predictions whatsoever about the following output.  But for
whatever reason, when you start thinking in terms of universes, you're
more than happy to start assigning probabilities like "very small"
based on a single output.

Let's get a little real here. I said that the probability of the very
many sub-atomic particles combining to produce stable matter is very
small. Now, either that's true or it's not true. The fact that I
personally don't possess a number is actually irrelevant. We're not in
a court of law here. Your disagreement with me should reside in your
being able to say that I am wrong, not that I don't possess a number.

But he isn't asking for a number!  He's asking you how you justify
your characterization of "very small."  Can you do so?

Incidentally, let's ask a few more questions. Maybe the eminent
scientists who populate these spaces might be able to help. Wikipedia
won't even list the number of subatomic particles. It uses the word
"dozens". They are so protean as to be almost uncountable.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion.  Usually "dozens" doesn't
work as a synonym for "almost uncountable."  Many people can count to
numbers that qualify as "dozens."



Now, my questions: Do they combine "accidentally" to form the matter we know?
Or: Does the matter we know almost create itself, actually creating
these particles to fill this or that gap? Or : Does matter, or the
particvles, have an inherent tendency to coalesce? Or; Finally, Does
energy transmute to several forms of matter, or only one? Is there a
fundamental link particle  between energy and the matter we know?

What is the probability of this happening?  No need for an exact
number, I just want you to walk me through how you know it's "very
small".  

I have no idea - and never suggested otherwise

You certainly did:  "Just becuse we don't have a precise number
doesn't mean we can't recognise that the probability is small."

"

- how probable such an
output was on your computer.

Good.  Then it's only a small step to realizing that your above
comment was incorrect.

OK, you win the battle - even tho you quote me out of context. Now,
let's turn to the war.

<snip>

Don't be shy about showing your work.

Start with this:http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~cca/papers/unknow.ps

Garamond

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You may be confusing uncountable with countless. Uncountable in this
context means that the entities in question are so protean as to
resist precise delineation.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Hidden Harmony of the Universe
    ... appeared in talk.origins, posted by Joseph Humming ... that the probability is very small. ... won't even list the number of subatomic particles. ... Do they combine "accidentally" to form the matter we know? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Hidden Harmony of the Universe
    ... appeared in talk.origins, posted by Joseph Humming ... that the probability is very small. ... won't even list the number of subatomic particles. ... Does the matter we know almost create itself, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Hidden Harmony of the Universe
    ... If you have a large collection of subatomic particles in a hot, ... gas (as was the situation in the very early universe), ... the probability of some of the dense ... For stable matter, though, most of these are irrelevant -- they have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 12D Gyroverse Model - does this make sense?
    ... matter is circulating the helix in the fourth direction at the ... Gravity is not pulling on matter, but gravitons are pushing ... Special relativity, ... entangled particles together. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
    ... applicable when describing matter. ... Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the ... CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. ... Gravity is caused by this space flow. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading