What is the Threshold of Intolerable Miraculousness?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Eugene Shubert, May 19, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Makes perfect sense

    ALL (ANY) miracles would be intolerable as they would go against Science and no Scientist would be able to work

    IF they ever happened

    Since they NEVER happen we can tolerate them

    Or more precisely we tolerate and are quite happy by their absence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Not every characteristic of an organism base pair sequences included, is the result of an evolutionary process adaptation. This is a common misconception about how evolution works. This is the misconception you are using when you suggest that something like an oak tree (a huge multicellular plant) could somehow adapt itself to become a primate, or a homonid primate (the most complex animal on the planet). To do that, you would need to have millions of generations of growth, and a lot longer for this to happen than the original 4 billion years. It always takes longer to tear something down and rebuild it than to build from scratch.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    It means an event so fantastically improbable, yet so perfectly consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics, that it makes most religiously devote atheists squirm. See, for example, the punchline to chapter 9 of MR TOMPKINS IN WONDERLAND by the prominent physicist George Gamow. (The book title is a link).
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Correct. That's two base pairs. Now extend that to three billion.
     
  8. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    At this time, and even more so in the future, there are cameras everywhere

    So I would expect to see a boiling glass of ice water on YouTube any time soon

    I would even settle for The Rapture or the dead arising (nar who could be bothered see The Living Dead again)

    I ain't squirming yet

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 23, 2017
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I don't mind you saying so. I'm a Seventh-day Millerite. http://everythingimportant.org/God
     
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    If the probability for a specific transposition of two base pairs in a genome of three billion is p, then the probability for the undoing of that transposition in the next iteration is also p.
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    The premise is (it seems) "when is a set of circumstances so improbable that 'God did it' is more probable that that those circumstances occurred by coincidence?".

    "God did it" is always going to be more improbable.

    Man isn't good with probabilities naturally. We are good with pattern recognition and not so good with probabilities.

    We usually overestimate the odds and (as was pointed out above) aren't aware of the law of very large numbers....someone wins the lottery every day, someone is being struck twice by lightening as well speak.

    The Birthday Paradox shows us that it only takes 25 people to be invited to a party for it to be more likely than not that two people will have the same birthday.

    Part of that problem is that people don't correctly understand the actual question. However most uncommon situations are more common than most people realize.

    Someone will correctly predict the next World Series winner. It's much less likely that we can tell who that will be ahead of time.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,676
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    I had a party once with 25 people including myself

    There was 24 people there who shared the same Birthday with another person at the party

    Yes

    The Society of Research into twins

    fund raising Teddy Bears picnic was a great success

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Seattle likes this.
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    Did you feel that it was intolerably improbable? It sounds like perhaps it was tolerable?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Armed with StrangerInAStrangeLand

    intolerably improbable

    it was very tolerable

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
    More than 40 times, I've been in a room with more than 30 people & asked them to write their birthdays on paper & hand them to me. Only once were any 2 the same.

    Who did this & got significantly different results???

    <>
     
  17. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
    Things are either possible or impossible. Anything possible is not a miracle.

    <>
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    You have to understand the actual question and the actual results. If you were to ask a group of people, "how large a group would you need for two people to have the same birthday?", you would get answers ranging from several hundred to several thousand.

    Some people would understand the situation as having one person with a specific birthday and then would be trying to guess how many people you would need to match that specific birthday.

    That's not the question. The question involves any two matching birthdays. Therefore it's a certainty once you invite 366 people since there are only 365 unique days.

    The 25 number is when the probability becomes greater than 50% so .51 since it's technically more likely than not at that point. To get to the 99% probability level I think the number is 85 people or something like that.

    Another area where people aren't good with properly accessing probability is when someone seems to predict more than it would seem likely that one could predict.

    Take a large room of people and ask everyone to answer a random "yes or no" question. Maybe half the room gets it right. Ask just the people who got it right to answer another "yes or no" question. Eventually if you keep going you will end up with just one person and that person will have guessed right maybe 10 times in a row.

    That sounds amazing or "beyond coincidence". That person must have ESP right?

    Of course not. One person in every room will get more questions in a row correct than everyone else.

    It would be amazing if you could predict beforehand who that person would be. It would be amazing if that one person could continue to do this but that's not what is happening.

    If you do this "experiment" again, in that same room, someone else will be the "amazing" one.
     
  19. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
    I understood the question as you put it. Then you changed it.

    <>
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    No, I didn't. I said...

    "The Birthday Paradox shows us that it only takes 25 people to be invited to a party for it to be more likely than not that two people will have the same birthday."

    More likely than not is reached at anything greater than 50% probability and that is reached with 25 people.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Thank you, Eugene, for providing a link to Gamow's "Mr Tompkins" book.

    Chapter 9 is the one about entropy and Maxwell's Demon. The punchline to this is that Maud knows the drink "spontaneously" separating into boiling and freezing parts only does so as a result of Maxwell's Demon swatting individual molecules with a special tennis racquet. By doing this, he redirects fast-moving molecules one way and slow-moving ones another. (In the process, he does work on the system, as the pump of a refrigerator also does.)

    I'm unclear what lesson you think you draw from this.
     
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
    Not going to argue back&forth on it.

    Again, WHO supposedly did this & got different results?

    <>
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,529
    It's statistics (math). It is what it is. That's like asking "who supposedly flipped a coin over and over and on average got tails half of the time and heads half of the time?".

    If you actually want the math, here it is...
    https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page