• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is ID so successful?

AWPrime said:
You have a very distroted view of a blueprint, for there is no fixed 'blueprint' in nature.
Click to expand...
Jon. said:
We were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. And who said we were talking about random change at all? Natural selection is not random.
Click to expand...
At least there's one person here who agrees with me. ;)
 
Make that two. I ain't the most brilliant broad in the world but I do have timing.
 
Iacchus said:
AWPrime said:
You have a very distroted view of a blueprint, for there is no fixed 'blueprint' in nature.
Click to expand...
Jon. said:
We were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. And who said we were talking about random change at all? Natural selection is not random.
Click to expand...
At least there's one person here who agrees with me. ;)
Click to expand...
Please, Iacchus. "Natural selection is not random" is not at all, in any way whatsoever, the same thing as a "fixed 'blueprint' in nature". Jon is not agreeing with you; he is pointing out that your understanding of natural selection is flawed.

It boggles the imagination that you could have been corrected so many times here, given so many links to read, and for you to have ignored every bit of that information!
 
Mercutio said:
Please, Iacchus. "Natural selection is not random" is not at all, in any way whatsoever, the same thing as a "fixed 'blueprint' in nature". Jon is not agreeing with you; he is pointing out that your understanding of natural selection is flawed.

It boggles the imagination that you could have been corrected so many times here, given so many links to read, and for you to have ignored every bit of that information!
Click to expand...
Well, let me make a prediction then ... that, can never fail. No matter what happens-- at any time, at any place -- there can only be one outcome. In which case it certainly sounds like something is "fixed" to me. Whereas if that outcome wasn't "assured," there would be nothing to bind the Universe together.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, let me make a prediction then ... that, can never fail. No matter what happens-- at any time, at any place -- there can only be one outcome. In which case it certainly sounds like something is "fixed" to me. Whereas if that outcome wasn't "assured," there would be nothing to bind the Universe together.
Click to expand...

"Outcome" of what?
 
Iacchus said:
Originally posted by Jon.
"Outcome" of what?
Click to expand...
The future.
Click to expand...

That means nothing. Obviously any outcome that we have not yet seen is in the future, but how can "the outcome of the future" have any meaning? Are you talking about the end of time?
 
Jon. said:
That means nothing. Obviously any outcome that we have not yet seen is in the future, but how can "the outcome of the future" have any meaning? Are you talking about the end of time?
Click to expand...
I'm speaking of what happens from one moment to the next. Which is purely a matter of cause-and-effect.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm speaking of what happens from one moment to the next. Which is purely a matter of cause-and-effect.
Click to expand...

If you're saying that cause and effect makes this a deterministic universe, I would agree with you, notwithstanding some of the findings of quantum mechanics theory that I don't pretend to understand. Cause and effect is also in evidence in the process of natural selection that causes evolution, but beyond that, I don't see what your earlier post that I questioned has to do with ID vs. Evolution.
 
Thanks Peter and cyborg for the references.

Cyborg, why are you so hostile? If everything I believe in is false, and I pose no threat, why does it effect you in a way that you have to be rude and hostile to me. Was I that way to you?
 
Jon. said:
If you're saying that cause and effect makes this a deterministic universe, I would agree with you, notwithstanding some of the findings of quantum mechanics theory that I don't pretend to understand. Cause and effect is also in evidence in the process of natural selection that causes evolution, but beyond that, I don't see what your earlier post that I questioned has to do with ID vs. Evolution.
Click to expand...
How many possibilities are there in a single seed? It's pretty much "outlined" what that seed will grow into, although contingent upon external circumstances, correct? Yet couldn't that seed also be compared to a single Universe unto itself?

What I'm suggesting is that the Universe couldn't have come about without the foreknowledge of its coming about which, is evidence of the Intelligence behind the Design. It couldn't have just arisen out of the ether now could it? This would be my version of ID anyway.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, let me make a prediction then ... that, can never fail. No matter what happens-- at any time, at any place -- there can only be one outcome. In which case it certainly sounds like something is "fixed" to me. Whereas if that outcome wasn't "assured," there would be nothing to bind the Universe together.
Click to expand...
Yes...I realize that you have always figured out your probabilities after the events have occurred. The probability of any event occurring, given that it has already occurred, is 1.00. And it is utterly irrelevant.

The idea, though, that there can only be one outcome is demonstrably false within even our theoretical bounds of measurement (that is, not merely our practical limits). The only way you are able to determine the "only possible outcome" is in hindsight. Which is not a prediction at all, but a postdiction. And it is "fixed", all right, because you are not looking at the future, but at the past.

Let me make a prediction, too...but one which is potentially falsifiable. (Note, it is only by making predictions that have a possibility of being wrong that we are able to progress.) My prediction: Iacchus will continue to misrepresent probability, randomness, natural selection, determinism, and the "big bang." That's 5 shots you have, Iacchus, to prove me wrong. If you can adequately represent any one of those within the next...(what seems fair--week? Month? Year?), my prediction will have been demonstrated false. And perhaps we can build from there.
 
Mercutio said:
Yes...I realize that you have always figured out your probabilities after the events have occurred. The probability of any event occurring, given that it has already occurred, is 1.00. And it is utterly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Again, just because you haven't figured out all the variables involved, doesn't mean that true randomness occurs. It doesn't. And yes, due to the nature of cause-and-effect, I am able to make all "my predictions" beforehand. The fact is, the future -- the progression from one moment to the next -- is going to happen, whether we understand all the variables or not. If not, there would be no present moment. This is the "evidence" I'm referring to. Again, it is wholly predictable beforehand.
 
Mercutio said:
The idea, though, that there can only be one outcome is demonstrably false within even our theoretical bounds of measurement (that is, not merely our practical limits). The only way you are able to determine the "only possible outcome" is in hindsight. Which is not a prediction at all, but a postdiction. And it is "fixed", all right, because you are not looking at the future, but at the past.
Click to expand...
And it is "fixed" alright, because it doesn't come from some place outside of time and space. Or, does it?

Let me make a prediction, too...but one which is potentially falsifiable. (Note, it is only by making predictions that have a possibility of being wrong that we are able to progress.) My prediction: Iacchus will continue to misrepresent probability, randomness, natural selection, determinism, and the "big bang." That's 5 shots you have, Iacchus, to prove me wrong. If you can adequately represent any one of those within the next...(what seems fair--week? Month? Year?), my prediction will have been demonstrated false. And perhaps we can build from there.
Click to expand...
All of which of course is irrelevant.
 
Oh, remember how people used to embrace the appearance that the world was flat?
 
Mercutio said:
Care to test this?
Click to expand...

Mercutio, you must have misread his statement. He does not claim to predict any specific outcome. Rather, he is pointing out that probability theory is a human conceit, a way to grapple with our ignorance, not a set of universal physical principles explaining why things happen the way they do. Flipping a coin does not mean that the result, heads or tails, is undecided /in the universe/, but only that it is undecided /to us/ (until the point we could measure the factors involved in a coin flip, which probably isn't that hard to do, really). There aren't any little green men in Dimension X dicing to decide what the outcomes of every event are.
 
CplFerro said:
Mercutio, you must have misread his statement. He does not claim to predict any specific outcome. Rather, he is pointing out that probability theory is a human conceit, a way to grapple with our ignorance, not a set of universal physical principles explaining why things happen the way they do. Flipping a coin does not mean that the result, heads or tails, is undecided /in the universe/, but only that it is undecided /to us/ (until the point we could measure the factors involved in a coin flip, which probably isn't that hard to do, really). There aren't any little green men in Dimension X dicing to decide what the outcomes of every event are.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Cpl., I appreciate the clarification, but I stand by my statement. We actually have two issues here--first, whether there are any incidents that are not merely practically unpredictable, but even in principle unpredictable; that is, are there events which, even if we know all that can be known about them in theory, are still unpredictable? The short answer appears to be "yes". The area in question appears to be quantum mechanics, and one particular example appears to be Hawking Radiation. (I could be wrong about this, of course; please, anyone with knowledge and evidence, correct me.)

The second issue is Iacchus's understanding of statistics. Whether or not something is in principle unknowable a priori is irrelevant to Iacchus, because all his probability measurements are made a posteriori. For Iacchus, there is no probability but p = 1.00. Every event has the same probability, since every event is pre-ordained. (I could be wrong about this one, too, but Iacchus is pretty predictable, and I do not think so. I have offered him the opportunity to prove me wrong many times, though, and do so once more...)
 
CplFerro said:
Mercutio, you must have misread his statement. He does not claim to predict any specific outcome. Rather, he is pointing out that probability theory is a human conceit, a way to grapple with our ignorance, not a set of universal physical principles explaining why things happen the way they do. Flipping a coin does not mean that the result, heads or tails, is undecided /in the universe/, but only that it is undecided /to us/ (until the point we could measure the factors involved in a coin flip, which probably isn't that hard to do, really). There aren't any little green men in Dimension X dicing to decide what the outcomes of every event are.
Click to expand...
Actually, it just occurred to me that true randomness is possible ... if, everything were in a state of perfection (i.e., if everything in relation to the "flip of a coin" were precise and equal which, in effect would be everything). Which of course is not possible in the physical sense is it? It's sort of like the notions of eternity and infinity, both of which are not bound within the constraints of time and space. They are conceptual elements of the mind though which, as I have said before, is a completely different dimension ... i.e., akin to the same dimension which was pre-existent before the Big Bang.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom