The name for the point where a probability changes

What about Charlie Brown's dog?TTFN,WK

Dear Syamsu, Once again you take what is the fundamental crux of the argument as a given. If things truly can go one way or another then probabilistic estimates may truly reflect reality, if not then they only represent our insufficient knowledge of the system.It might be a good thing for you to actually try and show that things can go one way or another if you want us all to accept it as a given. I don't see how you could possibly do it, but its the only way you can make your argument, as you are currently putting it forward, actually work.TTFN,WK

I don't see how any of this addresses what was a very simple request that you actually provide some evidence to support your position. Simply claiming that it is self-evident is not actually, in and of itself, evidence. That isn't what I said, I didn't make the two things mutually exclusive. If you actually read what I said then you might have noted phrases such as "may truly reflect reality" and "if not". I didn't say that probabilities must all be true reflections of reality or all must be measures of our ignorance.Even if all events can be assigned true probabilities which reflect a truly probabilistic universe, the probabilities which we, as fallible humans, assign to events must also encompass our ignorance of certain relevant factors.TTFN,WKP.S. I'd be happy to conduct a great debate with you at some point if you wished.

This is pretty much just gobbledigook, human certainty or uncertainty is not the same as probability being a fundamental basis for reality. I have never denied the existence of the concept of human uncertainty. What I have suggested is that at the present time it is unknown whether the actual fundamental basis of the universe is probabilistic or deterministic.Therefore it is pointless to try and hide your total absence of evidence by pleading that I should not be allowed to use the word evidence.You are even reverting to just regurgitating my own arguments slightly revised. Which is exactly the argument I was making about your assumption of the underlying probabilistic basis of reality as part of the argument in favour of recognising the importance of probabilities resolving, or 'realizing' if you will, as fundamental to understanding reality.TTFN,WK

But you do presume to do this every time you make the assertion that 'things can go one way or another'. That has to be the poorest reasoning I ever did see!! Did you just not read my last post? Do you just hit reply and paste in one of your own previous posts with a bit of rearrangement and a few sentences taken in or out?In what way does the notion of evidence presuppose that probabilities are real? Does it presuppose that we are imperfectly able to measure things but that accummulated 'evidence' allows us a greater degree of confidence in the 'probability' that a given statement is true? Or does it presuppose that the universe is so fundamentally unstable that the concept of truth itself is liable to fluctuations based upon unknown probabilistic phenomena.Just because you can type a sentence which says this rubbish doesn't mean that it represents a coherent argument. You can string any group of words together that you like, it doesn't mean that the concept of evidence actually does presuppose that probabilities are
'real'.Care to address the question of evidence supporting your contention this time rather than wriggle around like a worm on a hook?TTFN,WK

One problem I have always had with Syamsu's ideas is that they always seem to require massively large outlays of time and resources for incredibly small returns. His ideas for studying individuals to study evolution basically made it virtually impossible to do anything as you had to study every individual in a population, no sampling allowed. Or alternatively you could only look at 1 individual and then assume that there was absoloutely no variation in the population.Now his new hobby horse is that we should try and determine the evolution of the probability matrix for absoloutely every evolutionary lineage, or even for the whole universe, so we can determine the point where there was a probability of 1 that the eye would evolve, for example. Even allowing Syamsu's somewhat massive assumption that this 'realization' event was very early on in the cosmological evolution of the universe it still represent an insanely vast amount of computation for a miniscule and as far as I can see totally unrewarding return.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-06-2005 11:38 AM

Well how about the Oxford English Dictionary Or Webster's It is also clear that what your definition refers to is the probability based upon current knowledge which you are so ready to dismiss as being irrelevant to the 'true' probability that you are talking about. Notice all those knowns in there? This is not talking about absolute reality but about levels of confidence based on human evaluations of knowledge. Therefore this probability is clearly distinct from, and easily distinguishable from, your own type, so I fail to see any problem for you in now furnishing us with some evidence, apart perhaps from there being none to support your stance.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-06-2005 12:02 AM

Which makes it even more irrelevant to evolution. Why should any evolutionary theory focus on cases of a single individual when single individuals are incapable of evolving? I think people should read what Syansu himself has said in threads such as the 'Natural selection is wrong' thread and the many other threads dealing with his views on 'Darwinism' nad judge for themselves how much I am misintrerpreting his ideas when I say that to get the results that population sampling, population genetics and evolutionary theory provide us with his 'simplified' approach would involve direct study of every individuals' reproductive success or the unwarranted assumption that all individuals in the population were effectively identical. You have absoloutely no reason for assuming this to be the case. How much calculation do you think would be required to study the evolution of the probability matrix of the universe for even the first few seconds of its existence? Do you assume that it was that period that the probability of the eye evolving reached 1, if so I would be interested in the basis of that assumption.TTFN,WK

It is just as reasonable as assuming that it could have happened any other way, just because it feels more natural to beleive the universe is probabilistic does not mean that it is.It is certainly as reasonable as believing that the probability of the eye evolving reached 1 in the first few seconds of the universe's existence, or whenever it is you have decided to locate that 'realization'?Since when were ridicule and incredulity considered a good basis for an argument?TTFN,WK

Sure, now all you have to do is show that this is actually the case, the tricky bit is in the controls to ensure absolutely identical starting points. This is what I have been asking Syamsu to provide evidence of all along. If you think you have the neccessary evidence then I'll be just as happy with that.It seems however that, as you indicate, this is just your opinion. I certainly don't remember any conclusions from the other thread beyond the fact that, as yet, we don't really understand the deepest levels at which the universe works.TTFN,WK

Now here we have a perferct excample of the Strawman style of argumentation.I contend that we currently don't know whether the fundamental nature of reality is deterministic, indeterministic or somehow some strange admixture of both, and since we don't know that Syamsu's continuous assertions about things with exactly identical starting conditions having alternative outcomes remains simply an assertion, until he actually provides some evidence that we have the neccessary tools to produce exactly identical starting conditions and that the use of such tools has produced varying outcomes.Instead of addressing my argument Syamsu insists on claiming that I am saying that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, and furthermore that I am maintaining this solely on my own authority. He also says that I claim that probabilities do not exist, while in fact all I have maintained is that we cannot know if an event is truly probabilistic.Of course, this isn't an ideal example of a strawman as even then he doesn't actually offer any argument against a deterministic universe or in favour of truly probabilistic events other than his own incredulity and his usual unfounded assertions.TTFN,WK

I don't know why you should think that, given that I have stated my position several times over both this and previous threads on which we have discussed these issues. Besides, you have yet to make it clear if you mean probabilities as in those which humans assign to events or 'true' probabilities which would represent the workings of a fundamentally probabilistic universe, and which you have yet to provide any evidence for actually existing. Those don't actually refute anything. So even if there is no evidence for the existence of an 'owner'for a decision, we have to suppose that one exists because...? You say so? So does that rock own its 'decision' to bounce one way or another? You may be inclined to but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence let alone prove it. All you need to do is put 'evolution' and
'stochastic' or 'probabilistic' into pubmed. Once again you make use of that time honoured tool, the baseless assertion.TTFN,WK

I have to point out that on a previous thread on this topic I had already provided you with a quote from Hawking to the effect that... So perhaps you did misunderstand Hawking, or at least put undue emphasis on one particular statement. The incompleteness of the picture may be due to our lack of understanding.TTFN,WK

But will I be able to feel that I have achieved anything when I do it?TTFN,WKP.S. Despit the impression some people have, I am not really such a hard determinist as all that.

I am motivated in my position, that we do not know whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic and therefore cannot know whether there are any 'true' probabilities rather than simply human estimations of probability, because I have seen no evidence anywhere that we know one way or another whether the universe is deterministic.All I object to is you automatically assuming that it is and then making that assumption the basis for a rather loose and fairly pointless alternative approach to studying natural history/ evolution. The magic bit is beside the point, the very fact that you claim that things can go one way or another is a totally unwarranted assumption for which you have never provided any evidence. So you have a quote from Fischer to back this up do you, something showing the importance he ascribes to probability calculations for historical events with particular reference to one at the p=0.01 level?TTFN,WK