Higher than "chance"

[Garrette]

Ian,

I understand your last rebuttal to Dr. A.*

It simply does not apply to the question of your coming into being.

No one predicted Interesting Ian. Any significance attached to II was applied after your birth, not before.

You were never impossible nor logically impossible.

You are the product of sperm and egg.


*I understand but do not agree. However, others here are better able to discuss specifics. I'll stick to the point I have raised.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Ian admits to being wrong --- an example of humility to us all.

Which 2 statements of mine contradict each other? Please quote them and explain precisely how they contradict each other. Your other quotes of me do not reveal any contradiction so far as I am able to understand.

You claimed that it is impossible for an event with probablity zero to happen. When I pointed out that it is quite possible, you replied "I know".

Please name any of these blunders I have made!

What the hell is your problem?? You keep saying I've made stupid blunders, but are unable to name any of them???

This is a very stupid lie to tell, as everyone who reads the thread can see that you are lying.

Please name any of these blunders you unbelievable stupid idiot!!

Your claim that events with probability zero are impossible.

You're a doctor? A doctor?? You should be sacked.

No, I am not a doctor.

Now, with this impossible, logically impossible question we are addressing your stupidities.

Your definitions are correct.

Now lets go back to what was said before:

An event of zero probability cannot happen i.e if we have a specific number in mind between 0-1 which has an "infinite number" of digits after the decimal point, then that number cannot possibly be the one which will be chosen.

It is possible, with probability zero.

Now, the fact that such a specific number is randomly chosen does not alter this fact.

It does, however, contradict your stupid assertion that events with probability zero are impossible.

I realise it's extremely difficult to understand.

Good.

What I'm saying is that as a future event a specific number cannot happen.

You are wrong. It is possible for any specific number between 0 and 1 to come up --- this follows from the definition of the random number generator. But the probability of it occurring is zero.

Now who's making the stupid blunders??

Still you. If you don't understand probabilty theory, don't presume to lecture people on it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes. Magic.

You say you couldn't possibly be the product of sperm and egg yet you exist.

Which implies that you believe something in addition to sperm and egg brought you into existence. (Unless you don't believe you exist.)

You do not define the something else in this thread, but from your general (and shifting) stance on this forum I assume you equate it with the same something that you believe creates consciousness.

All of which is just saying: I don't understand this so it's magic.

I do not say, nor do I believe that anything brought me into existence. I do not accept that I came into existence sometime between conception and my birth.

Look, how small a possibility must something be in order to be effectively impossible? one in a googolplex perhaps? Even smaller than this?

What I'm saying is that if I am simply the product of sperm and an egg, then (from my first person perspective) the probability of me being born was so incredibly small that I can with confidence dismiss it.

But let me try another angle. Is it really rational to believe that something with such a mindnumbing small probability as in you being born would really happen?? Yet here you are. Therefore something has gone wrong in your worldview. You cannot be the product of a sperm and an egg.

And please don't say that anyone who had of been born in your place would equally be astounded! That is true, but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, from your perspective, you are special. Every single one of us has to judge that it is truly miraculous that they themselves were born, but obviously, no-one can be astounded that anyone else should be born. It's a first person thing.

Anyway, the probability of me being born is so small that I can safely dismiss it. Likewise the probability of you being born is so small that you can safely dismiss it. (But obviously you cannot judge the probability of me being born as being small, and neither me for you.)

You so obviously have a brain capable of impressive and intricate machinations, yet you so blindly adhere to contradictions and so persistently argue by proclamation that I wonder that you must surely be the greatest troll in internet history.

Then again, the blindness and proclaiming are so consistent that I wonder that you must surely believe what you argue.

I most certainly do. Even if my beliefs were weird, you surely would not deny that many people have extremely weird beliefs. Or do you think everyone is just pretending?

I agree that it's not impossible. This is why I said it effectively couldn't happen. You know, like the translocation of the car.

Gar
Do you really see no problem with this statement of yours I have quoted?

I'm saying that if say something only has , for example, one in a googolplex of a chance of occurring, then we can safely dismiss that it could happen. Why is that statement so baffling to people??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

I understand your last rebuttal to Dr. A.*

It simply does not apply to the question of your coming into being.

No one predicted Interesting Ian. Any significance attached to II was applied after your birth, not before.

You were never impossible nor logically impossible.

It would only be literally impossible if there are an infinite number of potential selfs. Are there under your materialism?

Of course even then you could argue it's logically possible (like a computer picking a number between 0-1). But I am special like (pi - 3) is special. Afterwards it would not be possible that the number could be pi-3). Same for me being born (from my perspective but obviously not yours).

But anyway, something like one in a googolplex is effectively the same as impossible, no?

 

[Donks]

I'm saying that if say something only has , for example, one in a googolplex of a chance of occurring, then we can safely dismiss that it could happen. Why is that statement so baffling to people??

Take a situation where all possible outcomes have the same probability of happening, and that probability happens to be one in a googolplex. You can't safely dismiss them. One of them will occur. Predicting which one will occur might not be possible, but one will occur nevertheless.
And just because you think one of the options has some significance, yet the same probabilty as any other, that does not mean it is any less likely to come up. It is just as likely.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And please don't say that anyone who had of been born in your place would equally be astounded! That is true, but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, from your perspective, you are special. Every single one of us has to judge that it is truly miraculous that they themselves were born, but obviously, no-one can be astounded that anyone else should be born. It's a first person thing.

Anyway, the probability of me being born is so small that I can safely dismiss it. Likewise the probability of you being born is so small that you can safely dismiss it. (But obviously you cannot judge the probability of me being born as being small, and neither me for you.)

This is a bit weird.

The implication seems to be that if I say "Ian, you are just the random product of a sperm and an egg, there is nothing at all miraculous about it" --- then I am right. I shouldn't, according to you, be at all astounded that you should have been born. I'd only be wrong if I said something similar about myself.

Okay then: Ian, you are just the random product of a sperm and an egg, there is nothing at all miraculous about it.

But we then have the strange situation that (if I understand you correctly) when I say this about you, it's true, but if you say it about yourself, it's false.

You remember you were asking about the definition of "logically impossible"...?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

I do not say, nor do I believe that anything brought me into existence. I do not accept that I came into existence sometime between conception and my birth.

Ah.

So the consciousness that is "you" has always been. The physical material that is its receiver is all that came into being at conception.

And a large part of the reason you believe this is your misunderstanding of probabilities.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:Look, how small a possibility must something be in order to be effectively impossible? one in a googolplex perhaps? Even smaller than this?

It is this term "effectively impossible" and how you throw it around when effectively debated that demonstrates the shallowness of this argument.

My winning the lottery is "effectively impossible" because I cannot buy enough tickets to get away from probability zero.

But I didn't try to win the lottery, or in this case, I didn't try to get born. I simply was. My consciousness came into being when I did.

Materialism allows for this quite nicely.

You continue to ignore the bit about applying an arbitrary significance.

You also ignore where Dr. A points out your contradictions.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is a bit weird.

The implication seems to be that if I say "Ian, you are just the random product of a sperm and an egg, there is nothing at all miraculous about it" --- then I am right. I shouldn't, according to you, be at all astounded that you should have been born. I'd only be wrong if I said something similar about myself.

It's like you saying "wow!, the computer actually picked 0.286392854722198745401 . . ., this is impossible!" But then you would say the same for virtually any number. Likewise you cannot say that my existence is astonishing unlikely therefore I cannot be a product of sperm and egg, because you would think the same for anyone who was born in my place!

But I'm sure you must understand that. What you don't understand is that for every single person on this planet their own case is special. It's not like you saying "wow!, the computer actually picked 0.286392854722198745401 . . ., this is impossible!", rather it is like "wow!, the computer actually picked 0.141592653589793238462. . . (pi - 3), this is impossible!"

From your perspective you are special, from my perspective I am special etc, because with no other actual person, or person who has lived, or person who will live, or any potential person, can you experience being them. From your perspective it is truly remarkable that you came into existence.

As I said before, the objection that anyone would say to themselves "wow I'm alive" simply misses the argument! The only argument which one might make is to say that if you had not come into existence, you wouldn't be here to think about it. Necessarily you can only wonder about your existence when you come into existence. Therefore it is not a surprising fact that you find yourself in existence.

This 2nd argument doesn't work either as I have explained. But really! You don't even appear to understand why the first "argument" doesn't work! And neither does anyone else arguing against me!

Absolutely incredible!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ah.

So the consciousness that is "you" has always been. The physical material that is its receiver is all that came into being at conception.

And a large part of the reason you believe this is your misunderstanding of probabilities.

*I* don't understand probabilities???

{shakes head sadly}

No, I don't believe that I did not come into being between conception and birth because of this. This is only a recent argument I've thought up. There are other reasons eg the evidence for reincarnation is compelling.

It is this term "effectively impossible" and how you throw it around when effectively debated that demonstrates the shallowness of this argument.

My winning the lottery is "effectively impossible" because I cannot buy enough tickets to get away from probability zero.

But I didn't try to win the lottery, or in this case, I didn't try to get born. I simply was. My consciousness came into being when I did.

Materialism allows for this quite nicely.

You continue to ignore the bit about applying an arbitrary significance.

You also ignore where Dr. A points out your contradictions.

I'm sorry, but where has he done this? I'm yet to be convinced that anyone even understands my arguments, never mind realises that they are wrong!

And on a more general note this is the whole problem with arguing against people on this board. I almost always understand peoples' arguments and I realise they are in error. I explain to them their errors. They don't understand my argument, but say that I'm wrong anyway. They do this by repeating their argument again which I understood right from the start!

 

[Dancing David]

Similar reasoning makes the chance of me being born so incredibly close to zero probability, that effectively it could not have occurred. Yet here I am. Therefore I cannot be simply the product of a sperm and egg. You see?

There is a flaw in this reasoning, first off there are a limited pools of genes that your genes are chosen from, assuming that genes determine the morphology of your body if not the nature of your being.

You are limited in your genetic makeup to the combination of your parents genes and while the probablity of your exact combination arising from your parents is much more limited than the combination of bridge hands.

And I too will state, uh, highly improbable does not mean impossible. The chances that a particular proton will quantumly materialize to another proton is very low, probably close to the bridge hand. Yet in the interior of the sun, there are so many active protons and they are in close proximity that fusion does occur. Even though statisticaly the chances of the protons approaching each other is very low.

By your logic the sun does not shine.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Likewise you cannot say that my existence is astonishing unlikely therefore I cannot be a product of sperm and egg, because you would think the same for anyone who was born in my place!

You're doing it again.

If I accept what you're saying, then I am completely justified in saying "Interesting Ian is just the random product of the coincidence of that sperm with that egg." Indeed, you go further and tell me that I cannot say that your existence is astonishing.

The only thing I mustn't say (if I've followed you aright) is "I myself am just the random coincidence of a sperm with an egg." Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you are just the random coincidence of a sperm with an egg --- and that there is nothing astonishing about your existence. And according to what you've posted, I am quite justified in so saying.

So if I'm right, why are you arguing with me?

 

[Jocce]

Ian, in my last post I pointed out why your reasoning is incorrect. Since you haven't commented on it I assume you didn't read it so I reiterate it in simple language.

When you, or anyone, apply logic to a problem you base your reasoning on a given set of facts assumed to be true. In your case those facts are.

1. The probability of me being born by chance alone is so small that it can be effectively ignored in this problem.

2. I am born

Conclusion: Something else beside chance has to be involved.

Congratulations, your reasoning based on those facts is correct. But sorry, your facts are not proven true.

You haven't proven fact 1 to be true so therefore your conclusion can't be proven true. Why is this so hard to understand?

Go ahead and prove to me that fact 1 is in fact true in this particular problem. That is:

Is the probability of you being born by chance only so small that it can be ignored in this problem.

 

[Throg]

from your perspective, you are special. Every single one of us has to judge that it is truly miraculous that they themselves were born, but obviously, no-one can be astounded that anyone else should be born. It's a first person thing

Then you are saying that it is impossible for you that you were born but for those other sentient beings that do not find you special it is possible that you were born. How about from a detached viewpoint of any objective observer?

 

[Interesting Ian]

You're doing it again.

If I accept what you're saying, then I am completely justified in saying "Interesting Ian is just the random product of the coincidence of that sperm with that egg." Indeed, you go further and tell me that I cannot say that your existence is astonishing.

The only thing I mustn't say (if I've followed you aright) is "I myself am just the random coincidence of a sperm with an egg."

And if that is correct then your following statement:

Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you are just the random coincidence of a sperm with an egg

Would be unreasonable to hold since if you are not simply the product of egg and sperm, then I won't be either since we are both human beings.

 

[Interesting Ian]

There is a flaw in this reasoning, first off there are a limited pools of genes that your genes are chosen from, assuming that genes determine the morphology of your body if not the nature of your being.

You are limited in your genetic makeup to the combination of your parents genes and while the probablity of your exact combination arising from your parents is much more limited than the combination of bridge hands.

And I too will state, uh, highly improbable does not mean impossible. The chances that a particular proton will quantumly materialize to another proton is very low, probably close to the bridge hand. Yet in the interior of the sun, there are so many active protons and they are in close proximity that fusion does occur. Even though statisticaly the chances of the protons approaching each other is very low.

By your logic the sun does not shine.

I've addressed this misunderstanding ad nauseam. If people still do not understand, then they never will.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, in my last post I pointed out why your reasoning is incorrect. Since you haven't commented on it I assume you didn't read it so I reiterate it in simple language.

When you, or anyone, apply logic to a problem you base your reasoning on a given set of facts assumed to be true. In your case those facts are.

1. The probability of me being born by chance alone is so small that it can be effectively ignored in this problem.

2. I am born

Conclusion: Something else beside chance has to be involved.

Congratulations, your reasoning based on those facts is correct. But sorry, your facts are not proven true.

You haven't proven fact 1 to be true so therefore your conclusion can't be proven true. Why is this so hard to understand?

Go ahead and prove to me that fact 1 is in fact true in this particular problem. That is:

Is the probability of you being born by chance only so small that it can be ignored in this problem.

That's fine. I am taking it as an axiom that "1" is true. If it is not true then my argument does not follow. Thus if it did not need a particular sperm and egg combination for me to be born, so that I could have been born to other parents at a different time in human history, then that is fine. I am actually in agreement with this. My parents did not need to meet in order for me to be born.

 

[Throg]

And if that is correct then your following statement:

Well, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you are just the random coincidence of a sperm with an egg

Would be unreasonable to hold since if you are not simply the product of egg and sperm, then I won't be either since we are both human beings.

Exactly as unreasonable as to hold that whether or not an unlikely event can occur is purely a matter of personal perspective, which I take to be Dr. Adequate's point. From his point of view and by extension from any objective point of view the random coincidence of your existence is possible. It is only from your point of view that it seems impossible. Your intuition says it's impossible, objective, logical assessment says it is possible.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Exactly as unreasonable as to hold that whether or not an unlikely event can occur is purely a matter of personal perspective, which I take to be Dr. Adequate's point.

Huh??

From his point of view and by extension from any objective point of view the random coincidence of your existence is possible. It is only from your point of view that it seems impossible. Your intuition says it's impossible, objective, logical assessment says it is possible.

Well, if one in a googolplex is possible, then yeah

Right! Fine! That one in a googolplex just happened to occur! No problem at all!

 

[Throg]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh??

[/QUOTE]

That's rather childish, Ian and desperately uninformative.

Well, if one in a googolplex is possible, then yeah

That's also rather childish. If you have a logical argument to show that one in a googleplex is not possible - and an appeal to intuition is not a logical argument - then you should present it, not roll your eyes like a petulant child. What's next, farting? Oh, wait ...

Right! Fine! That one in a googolplex just happened to occur! No problem at all!

It really isn't.

 

[Jocce]

Thus if it did not need a particular sperm and egg combination for me to be born, so that I could have been born to other parents at a different time in human history, then that is fine. I am actually in agreement with this. My parents did not need to meet in order for me to be born.

1. You need to define "me" as in "...for me to be borne"

2. The facts I mentioned has nothing to do at all with your conclusion "My parents did not need to meet in order for me to be born".

Please clarify and state your facts one by one and what conclusion you draw. Right now you are very vague.