Intelligent Design

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
If honesty could be relied on, we could simply get people here to toss a coin 10 times and report the results. It'd be amusing to ask PS or Fudbucker to guess how many would report 10 heads or 10 tails.

I thought about a test as well.

Posting a random number generator where an odds digit is heads and an even digit is tails would work. A random number of 10 digits could be guessed. Try it 10 times.

If I read some of the posts correctly, which is a problem because they are confused, some are saying that each result is as likely as any other result.

If that is so, then posters here would have no problem choosing the range of 0, 1 and 2 odds while I chose 4,5 & 6 odds. Let us do that ten times, and see how many I win compared to how many others would win.

Go on and do it your self. Use the =rand() function in Excel with the cell formatted for 10 decimal places. Here is my first run.

0.7429044146 = 3 odds
0.4001088867 = 2 odds = I lose
0.5232374015 = 6 odds = I win
0.9547069923 = 6 odds = I win
0.9252790587 = 5 odds = I win
0.0456503429 = 4 odds = I win
0.5212645072 = 4 odds = I win
0.9033716137 = 8 odds
0.4682202746 = 1 odds = I lose
0.1915876363 = 7 odds

Lets see. I win 5 and you win 2.

If each bet is $100 then I am $300 richer. Hand over the candy.

 

[abaddon]

I thought about a test as well.

Posting a random number generator where an odds digit is heads and an even digit is tails would work. A random number of 10 digits could be guessed. Try it 10 times.

If I read some of the posts correctly, which is a problem because they are confused, some are saying that each result is as likely as any other result.

If that is so, then posters here would have no problem choosing the range of 0, 1 and 2 odds while I chose 4,5 & 6 odds. Let us do that ten times, and see how many I win compared to how many others would win.

Go on and do it your self. Use the =rand() function in Excel with the cell formatted for 10 decimal places. Here is my first run.

0.7429044146 = 3 odds
0.4001088867 = 2 odds = I lose
0.5232374015 = 6 odds = I win
0.9547069923 = 6 odds = I win
0.9252790587 = 5 odds = I win
0.0456503429 = 4 odds = I win
0.5212645072 = 4 odds = I win
0.9033716137 = 8 odds
0.4682202746 = 1 odds = I lose
0.1915876363 = 7 odds

Lets see. I win 5 and you win 2.

If each bet is $100 then I am $300 richer. Hand over the candy.

How comprehensively incoherent. Please start by posting the exact formula in your cells.

Follow up by posting your understanding of the Excel rand() function. (Hint, you do not have one)

Please explain why it is that in your posted sample of 10 by 10 digit numbers, exactly 50 are odd numbers and 50 are even numbers.

 

[MikeG]

........If I read some of the posts correctly, which is a problem because they are confused, some are saying that each result is as likely as any other result.......

Here's your problem. You didn't read them correctly. You sniped at me, despite being in complete agreement. Go back and read what I wrote.

Each sequence of all the possible sequences has exactly as equal a likelihood of occurring as every other sequence. However, the totals of heads and of tails to be expected in such a series of tests is a bell distribution around the mid-point. You really should read more slowly and carefully before sneering.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

Please explain why it is that in your posted sample of 10 by 10 digit numbers, exactly 50 are odd numbers and 50 are even numbers.

I wondered what it was. It is exactly what one might expect from random numbers. Duh!

I just checked. Is it? Is it not 46 odd and 54 even? One of us (I admit it may be me) cannot count.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

delete

 

[Fudbucker]

Which sequence is less likely?

You're not asking the right question. The probability of anything, after it happens, is 1. That does not mean that whatever happened was or wasn't due to chance, or that we can't, counterfactually, evaluate what happened or figure out what the best explanation is.

Let E= 50 heads in a row. Let H = a fair coin fairly tossed.

Pr(E/H) << Pr(E/~H)

For the lottery example I gave let E = the first x digits of Pi. Let H = a fair lottery being run for the first time. Again:

Pr(E/H) << Pr(E/~H)

I'll tie this into the fine-tuning argument later.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Question.

What the ever-loving, chuffing cluster-fart does any of this have to do with intelligent design?

 

[Aridas]

The lack of understanding of simple probability of some on this site is truly astounding.

I hope you guys like to bet, and are prepared to put your money where your mouth is. Fudbucker and I can take it off you suckers.

Darn, my conscience just told me that what I am proposing is unethical - it would be like taking candy from a baby.

I'm actually mildly curious to know what kind of bet PartSkeptic thinks he could win with me, bearing in mind that I've never bought a lottery ticket because I consider them a tax on stupidity.

Lotteries & casinos are made possible by people who don't understand mathematics. In the US culture at least, the quickest way to tax the gullible is to hold a lottery.

The poorer gullible, at least. The richer gullible tend to largely lack motivation. I've been tempted to buy a ticket a few times more for fun than anything else, though, to be fair, but have yet to out of laziness. For big number lotteries that actually make it into the news, I just don't want to win those in the first place, though, because it would very, very significantly raise the chances of people targeting me and disturbing my already pleasant life.

We can only be surprised by the appearance of combinations that are already meaningful to us, and as long as they are a very small percentage of the total number of possible combinations.

For example if the digits of pi in base 8 appeared that would not be meaningful to us because we are only familiar with them in base 10.

If there were a lot more combinations that were meaningful to us the degree of surprise when one appeared would lessen. If 50% of possible combinations were meaningful there would be no surprise at all when one appeared.

Not sure if that will help.

Thanks for noting this. It reminded me of all the "Bible codes" and the many ways that people can "find" significance in pretty much anything they want.

 

[Mojo]

You're not asking the right question. The probability of anything, after it happens, is 1.

Which sequence is more likely before they happen?

 

[Fudbucker]

Question.

What the ever-loving, chuffing cluster-fart does any of this have to do with intelligent design?

Everything.

 

[Aridas]

Question.

What the ever-loving, chuffing cluster-fart does any of this have to do with intelligent design?

It's something of an attempted defense of a defense of a defense of an argument for ID. Either way, the overall argument boils down to "It is reasonable to assume that we and our universe were intelligently created because the odds strongly favor design over chance."

Given that we don't have a valid way to actually assess the odds in the first place, this particular line of defense cannot even reach the starting line. If we actually had a valid way to determine the odds, only then could a discussion about what actually would be unreasonable odds be taken seriously on this topic.

 

[PartSkeptic]

H(snip) Each sequence of all the possible sequences has exactly as equal a likelihood of occurring as every other sequence. (snip)

You reckon? So why am I winning. Okay, I got my spreadsheet to work a bit better. It automatically counts the odds in each sequence and then the totals. I refined it to ignore the first two decimal places. 2026770593 5 win 6113099092 6 win 7503519436 7 8449555036 5 win 7467417809 5 win 3098357125 7 5522731216 6 win 8529063870 4 win 0041108716 4 win 2231730005 5 win Total odd = 54 8 wins and 0 losses 4917872710 6 win 6099312265 5 win 8404796666 2 lose 6694173481 5 win 5557969038 7 7734824342 4 win 7074612712 5 win 6533812112 6 win 7097229424 4 win 3124680181 4 win Total odds = 48 8 wins and 1 loss If you want the spreadsheet details I can give them I was using Excel 2010. Rand() not perfect - picky picky picky. I know you can do better and fix this for all of us.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's something of an attempted defense of a defense of a defense of an argument for ID. Either way, the overall argument boils down to "It is reasonable to assume that we and our universe were intelligently created because the odds strongly favor design over chance."

Ah so it's Jabba's immortality thread with the proper nouns switched out.

Gotcha.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You're not asking the right question. The probability of anything, after it happens, is 1. That does not mean that whatever happened was or wasn't due to chance, or that we can't, counterfactually, evaluate what happened or figure out what the best explanation is.

Let E= 50 heads in a row. Let H = a fair coin fairly tossed.

Pr(E/H) << Pr(E/~H)

For the lottery example I gave let E = the first x digits of Pi. Let H = a fair lottery being run for the first time. Again:

Pr(E/H) << Pr(E/~H)

I'll tie this into the fine-tuning argument later.

Great. Some one with who understands. I look forward to you developing this.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Question.

What the ever-loving, chuffing cluster-fart does any of this have to do with intelligent design?

Some posters are arguing that sequences that appear special to us, like fifty fair coin tosses ending up heads in a row, are less likely than sequences where we don't perceive patterns.

And through this mischaracterization of probability, they want to argue in favor of a creator mind/spirit/deity because they think it's all a little 'too coincidental' that all the things that had to happen for us to exist happened without divine guidance.

It's a roundabout argument from incredulity.

ETA: ninja'd

 

[PartSkeptic]

The poorer gullible, at least. The richer gullible tend to largely lack motivation. I've been tempted to buy a ticket a few times more for fun than anything else, though, to be fair, but have yet to out of laziness. For big number lotteries that actually make it into the news, I just don't want to win those in the first place, though, because it would very, very significantly raise the chances of people targeting me and disturbing my already pleasant life.

You do realize that when picking lottery numbers, perhaps one stands a better chance if the number of odd numbers is about the same as the even numbers, and that they are not all crowded together, or have some non-randomness in them.

Yes? No?

 

[Pixel42]

You reckon? So why am I winning.

Because you are still confusing sequences with combinations, despite having the difference between them explained to you in the simplest possible terms.

All sequences are equally likely. Some combinations are more likely than others.

Try reading the posts by myself or MikeG that explain the difference again.

 

[Meadmaker]

You do realize that when picking lottery numbers, perhaps one stands a better chance if the number of odd numbers is about the same as the even numbers, and that they are not all crowded together, or have some non-randomness in them.

Yes? No?

No.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Some posters are arguing that sequences that appear special to us, like fifty fair coin tosses ending up heads in a row, are less likely than sequences where we don't perceive patterns.

And through this mischaracterization of probability, they want to argue in favor of a creator mind/spirit/deity because they think it's all a little 'too coincidental' that all the things that had to happen for us to exist happened without divine guidance.

It's a roundabout argument from incredulity.

ETA: ninja'd

You have missed a key point. 50 heads is not just special it is highly unlikely. 50 tosses that produce alternating heads and tails is special but far more likely than 50 heads.

 

[Pixel42]

You have missed a key point. 50 heads is not just special it is highly unlikely. 50 tosses that produce alternating heads and tails is special but far more likely than 50 heads.

25 heads and 25 tails are more likely than 50 heads, but the specific sequence of alternating heads and tails is not more likely than 50 heads.