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. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    That's funny, there is no documentation of that. All the discussions about leaking the wedge document make no mention of a dan shawen.
    By the way, I invented uranium.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,293
    If the Wiki account is correct, Dan is someone called Matt Duss.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    I guess Dan shawen is an anagram of Matt duss.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    One base pair? Sure.
    The whole organism? No.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,293
    But then again, Matt Duss.....dust mat......???? Maybe it is he who is the pseudonym.....
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    You misunderstood the point of the illustration completely.

    Here is the punchline:

    ‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

    In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.'

    Unquestionably, it never even dawned on the professor that a mischievous being might be responsible for violating your grotesquely false notion of an improbability threshold.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    But where is the improbability in evolution?
     
  11. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I can wait.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    He doesn't even understand his own argument any more. He's just throwing out terms he doesn't understand to try to make people think he sounds smart.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  13. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    No. I am a quantum creationist. Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness.

    For example, Prof. Alexander Vilenkin, Director, Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, is a quantum creationist.

     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    I appreciate your honest confession: You don't understand what I've written.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    To form any particular living thing, yes, the chances are infinitesimal that nature would form it exactly again. However, evolution doesn't have a particular form as a goal, nature can result in unique life forms all day long. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    Heck, YOU don't understand what you've written.
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    How could those who honestly confess to not understanding what I've written know if I understand my own writings?
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,734
    In other words, the chances that you win the lottery are very small, but the chances that the lottery officials will draw a number are very high.
     
  19. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    That is one of the most ignorant accusations that I have ever heard. Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Millerites share many common beliefs, such as understanding many examples of the Bible's use of symbolism, metaphors and poetic representations.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,240
    Why is this thread still in "Physics and Math"?
     
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    If anything I can think of would break a "threshold of miraculousness" limitation, quantum creationism as you descibe it would definitely fill the bill.

    Well, I suppose that if G-d can't be the center of everything, the least thing he can do is be spontaneous. I don't understand why this concept is a more comforting an idea, than if G-d took a more leisurely "I can wait" approach to creation, which is the case with evolution.

    I do understand that religious values including a better understanding of how G-d created the universe can be a strong motivation for seeking a deeper understanding of scientific principles, Eugene. As long as you observe the first commandment, avoid the sin of pride wherever you can, and not make all or part of science or anything else into a graven image or an idol, it's tolerable.

    In my adopted religious tradition, different parts of scripture are valued more than in yours. The book of revelations is not one of the five books of Moses, and so it is of no consequence whatsoever. The book of Genesis is there, but we do not take it literally, or anything akin to science.
     
  22. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    This topic is entirely mathematical and physical. Even the definition of the threshold of intolerable miraculousness is mathematical. For what number N is an event of probability 1/N not unusual but an event of probability of 1/(N+1) is irritatingly improbable and undeniably impossible for all practical purposes? Also, this topic is related to my strictly math-based definition of an inheritable, maximal-magical molecule. I think it's amusing how hilarious religiously devout atheists become when you define a molecule -- using only pure mathematics -- to be inheritable and maximal-magical if it always had and would continue having a charmed life, which, I as I have claimed, can be defined purely mathematically.
     
  23. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,240
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page