Odds of being born

Soapy Sam said:
It would certainly be very , very small if we look at it from the position of "Why ME?"
But that's so only if we had tried to predict ME, from a point 3 billion years ago. We did not. Humans, including you and me, are being born at the moment, because humans only evolved recently and they bonk like bunny rabbits, so there are lots of them appearing. The ME aspect is purely incidental- a trick of self awareness. Had it not been you and me, it would have been someone else, whose self awareness would lead them to ask exactly the same question- "Why ME?"
Click to expand...

That's right.

Nobody asks why the bit of basalt near the golf course at Boyleston quarry just happens to exist here and now. (Except the guy whose ball bounced off it for a hole in one). Certainly it would have been just as improbable seen from 3 Billion years ago as the existence of either of us.

Does this lead us to reject the materialist story for Plate Tectonics?
Click to expand...

No.

From my perspective I am uniquely special. Any other potential person is not special in this way because if they had of been born in place of me, I wouldn't be here at all. So from my perspective, me being born is uniquely special compared to anyone else.

It's like a number being randomly chosen which has a googolplex of digits. If these digits happened to be the first googolplex digits of pi we would know something fishy is going on.
 
Interesting Ian said:
From my perspective I am uniquely special. Any other potential person is not special in this way because if they had of been born in place of me, I wouldn't be here at all. So from my perspective, me being born is uniquely special compared to anyone else.
Click to expand...
But from the perspective of a hypothetical observer at the time of the Big Bang?
 
Another analogy: A lottery.

Suppose that at a run, 5 numbers are randomly choosen from 0 to 100.

What are the odds that a given individual has to win the lottery?

Now suppose 10000 persons have randomly choosen each one their own sets of five numbers.

What are the odds of someone actually get a match?

So, is there any need, obligation, hidden cause, whatever, that would somehow dictate that among those 10000 persons, Joe alone won the lotery? Or that Joe, Wilheim and Mary, among all those individuals chose the same random numbers that were selected? Or that no one managed to win the lottery?

No. Sheer chance.

So, you were born and grew up to become what you are now. Out of the countless possible outcomes, you are here. You are "special" just because you are the result of chances and possibilities. If something else was slightly diferent in the past, perhaps you would not have been born. You are discusing the odds that you were born just because your were born. There's no reason, meaning or purpose for your existence. Of course, that's my interpretation. Feel free to disagree.

So, what to do? Carpe diem.
 
Interesting Ian said:
From my perspective I am uniquely special. Any other potential person is not special in this way because if they had of been born in place of me, I wouldn't be here at all.
Click to expand...

But they would. So how would that be different? (it wouldn't be different for you, since you wouldn't be there, and it wouldn't be differetn for them, either.) For everyone else there would be just some other person and they wouldn't know the difference, either.

So how are you more special than any other "Ian" that could have potentially been?

So from my perspective, me being born is uniquely special compared to anyone else.
Click to expand...

How are you more special than me? Was it anymore likely that you had been born, than it was that I have been born?

If I hadn't been born, would a potential other "Rasmus" not be just as special as I am now? And would he not be just as special as you are? Or as any other "Ian" would be?

It's like a number being randomly chosen which has a googolplex of digits. If these digits happened to be the first googolplex digits of pi we would know something fishy is going on.
Click to expand...

No. Not if they are truly randomly chosen.

Now if you present me with a googlplex of numbers and they are the first googolplex digits of pi, I wouldn't assume that they are random numbers unless otherwise stated. Is that what you meant?

But coming back to the original subject: You are not at all like the first googolplex digits of pi. You aren't any more special than I am, or that anyone else is, or even would be if they existed.

And, as always, if I look at enough googolplexes of random numbers, then a few of them are bound to meaningful numbers if looked at by intelligent agents. One would be the first googolplex digits of pi. Another would be the exact cell count of my body, and another yet would be a long string of just zeros. However, there is nothing special about each of these being selected in a radom process.

Rasmus.
 
I don't know how this crazy psychic came up with that number, and I don't even care to know. It's completely arbitrary, as far as I am concerned.

But, while we're on the subject: It might be useful to separate the chances of any life forms being born at all, from the chances of one particular entity being born.

Some try to argue that our Universe was uniquely and precisely "designed" for life. This is clearly bonkers. In principal, complex adaptive systems could arise out of any type of Universe - any type at all that you could possibly make up. For example, you can develop a completely fantastical Universe where heat and water don't exist; gravity is much weaker; and a substance I just made up, called glugoglop is prominent (which has no equivalent in this Universe). It is still possible for complex adaptive systems to arise, and therefore life forms to evolve, although they will look quite substantially different from what we know of life. This is especially true given an infinite amount of time (or whatever dimensional equivalent the Universe has) to work with.
Guess what: Those life forms will probably think their Universe was uniquely and precisely designed for life, and that our Universe is completely fictitious.;)

Therefore, the chances of any life forms being born, at all, is exactly 1.
So much for the psychic's claims.

The next question is: What are the chances of a single, particular entity being born? Given the fact that this specific entity could only arise, by definition, in a specific Universe, perhaps the chances begin to appear closer to zero. But, perhaps a better way to phrase the question, to be useful to this thread, is this way:

What are the chances of your own consciousness being able to arise in any given Universe?

Given infinite time, I say the answer also appears to be 1.

The next question, which I don't have an answer for, is this: If it was really very likely for myself to have been born, after all, are the chances of my consciousness arising again, after my death, any less likely?
 
T'ai Chi said:
answer = # times I was born / # total times I could have been born.

Kinda hard to evaluate. :)
Click to expand...


Not really - if any other arrangement of matter would not have been you, then there is only one time you could have been born (barring a cyclic repitition of universal physical states). This means the answer is 1/1. Or you could look at it as number of times your parents copulated unprotected... That would reduce your chance of having been born a bit.
 
fowlsound said:
I'd say the odds are 50/50. Either you are, or you aren't born.
Click to expand...
Please don't propagate this fallacy. When trying to assign probabilities to two alternatives, choosing 50/50 without supporting evidence is an error. Here's another example of this fallacy in action:

What are the odds that there's life on other planets? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.
What are the odds that there's life on other planets in the Milky Way? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.
What are the odds that there's life outside the Milky Way? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.

It can now be proven, using these probabilities, that there is life outside the Milky Way if and only if there is life on other planets in the Milky Way. That is, to steal from Mark Twain, a pretty good return of fact for such a small investment in fallacy.
 
Interesting Ian said:
From my perspective I am uniquely special. Any other potential person is not special in this way because if they had of been born in place of me, I wouldn't be here at all. So from my perspective, me being born is uniquely special compared to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but does this not hold, equally, for every thinking being on the planet and, by secondary reference, for every object of any sort , anywhere? (For example, the dust bunny in the corner of the lab is special to me , because I so define it. So everything is equally special and therefore equally probable)
 
Just a brief thought about a false analogy that may be dogging some parts of this discussion, between :

1. What are the odds against Smith's winning the lottery? and

2. What are the odds against Smith's being born (or conceived)?

When we think about 1, we take it for granted that we can tell whether an individual is or is not Smith, without any information about that individual's lottery activities. When we think about 2, we may be tempted to assume that we can tell whether an individual is or is not Smith, without any information about that individual's being born (or conceived). I take that assumption to be unintelligible.

Let me add, to avoid misunderstanding, that several posters have taken the question posed in this discussion to be a question of fact, and they have cited facts such as the rate of spontaneous abortion. My criticism is certainly not directed at them.

Regards to all.
 
Correa Neto said:
Another analogy: A lottery.

Suppose that at a run, 5 numbers are randomly choosen from 0 to 100.

What are the odds that a given individual has to win the lottery?

Now suppose 10000 persons have randomly choosen each one their own sets of five numbers.

What are the odds of someone actually get a match?

So, is there any need, obligation, hidden cause, whatever, that would somehow dictate that among those 10000 persons, Joe alone won the lotery? Or that Joe, Wilheim and Mary, among all those individuals chose the same random numbers that were selected? Or that no one managed to win the lottery?

No. Sheer chance.

So, you were born and grew up to become what you are now. Out of the countless possible outcomes, you are here. You are "special" just because you are the result of chances and possibilities. If something else was slightly diferent in the past, perhaps you would not have been born. You are discusing the odds that you were born just because your were born.
Click to expand...

Ah! An appeal to the anthropic principle no less!
 
Rasmus said:
II
From my perspective I am uniquely special. Any other potential person is not special in this way because if they had of been born in place of me, I wouldn't be here at all.

Rasmus
But they would (emphasis added). So how would that be different? (it wouldn't be different for you, since you wouldn't be there, and it wouldn't be differetn for them, either.) For everyone else there would be just some other person and they wouldn't know the difference, either.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's obviously ridiculous for me to say how miraculous you were born, or indeed anyone who is not me. In that case the argument that people have been putting forward applies.

So how are you more special than any other "Ian" that could have potentially been?
Click to expand...

From an objective or 3rd person perspecive I clearly am not at all special.

How are you more special than me?
Click to expand...

Well I care more about what happens to me than anyone else. And you care more about what happens to you more than anyone else. So I am special from my perspective, and you are not special (nor anyone else). You are special from your perspective, but no one else is special. And the same applies to all conscious entities. Any conscious entity is bound to consider him or herself as being special, but no one else is.

Was it anymore likely that you had been born, than it was that I have been born?
Click to expand...

Probably not.

II
It's like a number being randomly chosen which has a googolplex of digits. If these digits happened to be the first googolplex digits of pi we would know something fishy is going on.

Rasmus
No. Not if they are truly randomly chosen.
Click to expand...

Well that's the whole point. If the first googolplex of digits were pi then we would effectively know it wasn't random.

But coming back to the original subject: You are not at all like the first googolplex digits of pi. You aren't any more special than I am, or that anyone else is, or even would be if they existed.
Click to expand...

I most certainly am from my perspective.

And, as always, if I look at enough googolplexes of random numbers, then a few of them are bound to meaningful numbers if looked at by intelligent agents. One would be the first googolplex digits of pi. Another would be the exact cell count of my body, and another yet would be a long string of just zeros. However, there is nothing special about each of these being selected in a radom process.
.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. Nor does anyone else.
 
Jarom said:
Originally Posted by fowlsound :
I'd say the odds are 50/50. Either you are, or you aren't born.

Please don't propagate this fallacy. When trying to assign probabilities to two alternatives, choosing 50/50 without supporting evidence is an error. Here's another example of this fallacy in action:

What are the odds that there's life on other planets? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.
What are the odds that there's life on other planets in the Milky Way? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.
What are the odds that there's life outside the Milky Way? Well, either there is or there isn't, so 50/50.

It can now be proven, using these probabilities, that there is life outside the Milky Way if and only if there is life on other planets in the Milky Way. That is, to steal from Mark Twain, a pretty good return of fact for such a small investment in fallacy.
Click to expand...

Well yes. It's obviously patently false.

People just toss of these glib obviously false remarks without thinking.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Fair enough, but does this not hold, equally, for every thinking being on the planet and, by secondary reference, for every object of any sort , anywhere? (For example, the dust bunny in the corner of the lab is special to me , because I so define it. So everything is equally special and therefore equally probable)
Click to expand...

Why is this "dust bunny" special compared to any other "dust bunny" which might have existed in its place?
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
Just a brief thought about a false analogy that may be dogging some parts of this discussion, between :

1. What are the odds against Smith's winning the lottery? and

2. What are the odds against Smith's being born (or conceived)?

When we think about 1, we take it for granted that we can tell whether an individual is or is not Smith, without any information about that individual's lottery activities. When we think about 2, we may be tempted to assume that we can tell whether an individual is or is not Smith, without any information about that individual's being born (or conceived). I take that assumption to be unintelligible.
Click to expand...

It might well be. Yet the individual knows.

In brief it's not a false analogy at all.
 
CurtC said:
(snip)
- what is it that makes me, me? I am not anyone else who has ever lived or is alive now, and when I die my time will be over. I used to think along the lines that a particular sperm cell had to find a particular egg cell to make me, but since those are just arrangements of chemicals, I no longer think that's it.

(snip)

Why is my consciousness in my brain, and not in anyone else's, ever? What if that particular sperm and egg didn't come together, but instead was the next sperm cell that almost made it, would my consciousness be here?

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of that.
Click to expand...

The best answer I can come up with is that, given infinite time, in a sufficiently chaotic Universe (which would be just about any Universe you could imagine (see my ranting above in this thread)), chances are anything can happen, thus everything tends to happen at least once - including the existence of your own consciousness. Remember, we are given infinite time, here*. And, the specific sperm and egg combo becomes a bit less relevant.

This is not a perfect answer, but I hope it helps a little.

*That's a LOT of time! More time than anyone can fathom. You may think it takes a long time to get to the local chemist, but that's just peanuts to what the Universe has available to work with!
 
Interesting Ian said:
It might well be. Yet the individual knows.

In brief it's not a false analogy at all.
Click to expand...

Interesting Ian,

I shan't insult you by suggesting that your "It might well be" is a concession. You will probably want to explain why it isn't a concession.

On to your " Yet the individual knows". Now, which individual is that? One that doesn't exist?

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom