The name for the point where a probability changes

And even if those true probabilities could be assigned to potential events that would not determine which result actually occurs (unless, and only if, it assigns a probability of 1 to only one result, and in which case it would no longer be a probability). Yeah, multiple repetitions of assertions without substance are still just assertions without substance. Someone just hasn't realized it yet ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Sounds like a perfect task for "creation pscientists" to work on. When they start showing results ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

chaotic determinismchaotic elements set up relatively deterministic results -- weather comes to mindand that is as far as one needs to go in looking for a cause ultima in order to study the deterministic elements.we learn tid-bit by tid-bit on what happens if, and it is based on what we already know.

LOL pure incredulity. to say nothing about the absurdity of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that because something is observed it must have been made to be that way intentionally above all other possible results. this is worse than arguing about why is the sky blue.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-06-2005 13:10 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Okay. I am calling you on it. The first thing someone learns when they are criticized on the logic of their arguments is to call the other argument a "straw-man"But rarely do they really understand what that means.Let’s look into this question here:The Straw-Man Fallacy (click) What is your stronger position that I have not addressed?All you have done is repeat yourself ad nauseum without substantiation nor rebutal of other arguments.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-06-2005 13:23 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

heh.the free will to make decisions on the choices that get handed to you anyway. another meteor into the yucatan and it could well be a moot point (it would certainly mute the argument).I agree, hence the chaotic modifier. of course you could also argue for deterministic chaos just to bend the thinking process a little.the subatomic world as a dance of particles in and out of {reality\virtuality\un-entity} is chaos at the core, if not the thought process of the universe in considering what it is that it is ...but weather is a good example of pulling determinable processes out of chaotic ones. whether or not it rains.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and yet you keep saying that they have effects.thus it is not me that is making the strawman.next. oh that's right: you were supposed to give the stronger version of the argument that refutes my version being a weakened one.gosh you missed again.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-06-2005 23:01 AM

you still fail the "straw-man" test. you are supposed to show how your position is stronger ... not done.decision? where?
determiniation? what?"realization" is just the fact that one result happened. the coin landed ... and oh look it was heads this time...but you try to read more into it ... it has "decision, determinations" ... what are those if not implied effects? hmmm???and that isn't even getting into your supernatural aspects.lolThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 07:52 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

nope. wrong again. you really do not see my position because you cannot restate it. also false representation.hard to win arguments when you don't have substantiation for them, and are reduced to misrepresenting the arguments of others ...... and never answering the questions or addrssing the points raised.added by edit -- points not addressed: Now we will get a repeated assertion.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 09:10 AM

More unsubstantiated logically invalid posting.what happens happens, regardless of the probability.prove me wrong.calculation of probability is irrelevant to the reality of what is going to happen.person A calculates it wrong but guesses right, while person B calculates it right but guesses wrong. there is no link, no light, no reality to probability. no magic.consider a thought experiment where there are two identical alternate universes:in one 'Purple' tosses a coin and it comes up HEADS: I look at it and say hmm, it came up heads; you look at it and say it came up heads because something special {determined\decided\chose\happened} for it to be heads, we need to consider the special "headness" of this result.in the other 'Purple' tosses the coin and it comes up TAILS: I look at it and say hmm, it came up tails; you look at it and say it came up tails because something special {determined\decided\chose\happened} for it to be tails, we need to consider the special "tailness" of this result.your ascertion of special relevance to the moment that probability is no longer a factor is nothing more than another post hoc ergo propter hoc ascertion that it had to happen that way just because it did happen that way.the fact, plainly, is that your response to any probable outcome would be the same no matter what the outcome {is\was\would be} -- that you would claim that result to be "special" -- and this really proves my point about the relevance of probability to reality.again: prove me wrong.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 11:50 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you failed the exam again. sorry, go back to door #2. you have added no proof, therefore no challenge to my points that refute your argument.and you are supposed to show a stronger version when you say strawman, not just repeat a failed argument.how relevant is knowing a probability is 99% when the 1% occurs? zilchsorry. it just doesn't add up.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

in an endless decimal number (pi, phi, e, 3^1/3, whatever...) is it not probable that there will be an equal number of odd and even digits?does that probability have any effect on the actual digit that comes next no matter how unknown that digit is?enjoy.{edited to change subtitle}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 19:23 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

false. I am saying that no matter how well informed you are with any probability it is no guarantee of the result, that there is NO link between probability and what really happens, because probability is a mental guess about reality.perhaps instead of making more false representations of my position you could try answering the questions posed to you.you seem to have established a pattern of obfustication here.http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes http://EvC Forum: The name for the point where a probability changes

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

moremoremoreunsubstantiated opinionit's all you have syamsu. your bluff has been called and you still can't play the cards.you see magic because you want to see magic because you hope there is magic. that is all you have.the sad fact is that no matter which result happens you will claim it is magic no matter how meaningless it is.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

too bad Dawkins isn't here to refute your strawmen arguments about his concepts.thanks for admitting that you final answer is "god did it" and you realize of course that your argument totally eliminates free-will. which btw is the ultimate deterministic of determinist views. it also means that you have no evidence for your position.thanks for playing.enjoy.