The name for the point where a probability changes

Your way to go about enumerating every single last possible outcome, is a total waste of work, which is a very typical way to go about it of people who don't know how to handle probabilities. That was also an error I sought to replace, by concise logic. What I am insinuating is that you fail to handle probabilities with any ease, so what, it's very difficult. It's just when you go accusing me of failing to understand, eventhough I provide a correct explanation that this needs to be pointed out. And no I did not read that explanation I provided anywhere.The way that probability and cause are related, is that a determination on a probability sets a cause which has the effects. Heads turns up, heads is a cause with effects. Determinism also means it has been decided, in it's definition. It traces back the decision at which the cause was set. So looking at the definitions of words, it seems quite old logic that a realization on a probability, sets a cause which has it's effect.All I'm intending to do is to express common knowledge, in a more formal way. It is not very likely that my opinion is not shared, not likely that you don't share my opinion in daily life, when you use the common knowledge. Now I have already 2 very fundamental disagreements about reality with evolutionists. One that probabilities are real, which evolutionists don't believe, two that comparisons aren't real, only exist in the mind, which evolutionists believe to be real. It is only because we agree in terms of common knowledge that I'm able to talk to evolutionists at all.You have not established any fact, you are just repeating things from your previous education that denies probabilities as real.What sycophantic fear you have of introducing God into science, that you simply discard any meaningful description of identity, a description that has the identity as the owner of decisions, altogether. I was merely observing the psychological phenomenon to attribute an owner to decisions, whoever that owner may be. Why for instance you own your decisions, no absolute need to refer to God for that. Of course the sole reason you don't tend to attribute an owner is because you incorrectly name the realization / determination, event, thereby losing the link to the fact that things can go one way or another, in the event.Again I never made such a "post hoc ergo propter" argument You are trying to fit me into a mould where other religionists might have gone, but I didn't go there.You have no point saying that the collegecourse doesn't mention realization, except if they use another word to name the point where a probability changes. The fact that they have no name for this point AT ALL, indicates that the subjectmatter is fundamentally underdeveloped in the collegecourse.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There you go again.... talking about probabilities having no effect, as if it means something. That's about the 6th time you done this. Would you like to enter a moderated debate with me RAZD. So you can't bloody well repeat the same dullminded strawman over and over, without being called on it.I openly invite anyone to a moderated debate on the issue, as it is quite an important issue IMO, quite fundamental.For instance this prejudice towards cause and effect goes to explain the history of racist overtones of evolutionist descriptions of human behaviour. As they don't understand anything but a machine view of people, they are compelled to explain decisionmaking in terms of cause and effect, so what is called the spirit and the mind must be in the blood. Some go to argue that it is environmental cause and effect in stead, but this is more communist ideology, than it is a scientific proposition. The thing is that human behaviour is subject to decision, and since evolutionists do not know to name that point, the point where it goes from several possible outcomes, to an actual outcome, they are hellbent to ignore and deny it.Go read it back, I did provide an explanation, geez. Oh but I guess you are still busy enumerating every possibility on a sequence of 1000 cointosses, as that is the "proper" way to go about handling probabilities, according to you.The overhaul is to name the point where a probability changes. Well they already got one name for it, realization, but it does not convey the fact of things being able to turn out one way or another very well, and the name is relatively unknown among people in general, scientists included.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It must be because you have fallen back into your usual "cause and effect" mode of thinking again, that now you have deja-vu. Your argument was already refuted on account of that:- You can hardly prove cause and effect, to the exclusion of things going one way or another, so you would also come to deny cause and effect as reliable.- The reality of probabilities is practicable, the unreality of them is not.- It is already a critical constituent part of science, and has always been a part of it's practice, that it is true that things can turn out one way or another. The possibility that it is not true has only existed as a philosophical idea in the cultural context of science.sidenote: See RAZD if you believe in things going one way or another, as I think you said you did, as a consequence your measuring of ignorance argument fails. You can't entertain both as true.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Since the notion of evidence presupposes an uncertainty as true, you can't use the word evidence in trying to find out whether or not probabilities are real. You can't assume what you seek to explain. Again it is fundamental. If you want to deny it's existence, then I will hold you to not using any words that assume the exisence of it, that would be very hard.I am not inclined to do a fundamental philosphical investigation of the issue. Generally all observations are of the past, so of course one can't see a probability there, because they are in the future. But it may be found that the act of observation presuppposes probability to be true.Sure I'd debate anytime, altough I'm travelling next days actually.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is an unwarranted special exception to recognize probability as real one place, as with human uncertainty, and not recognizing it in general.Besides I would never presume to know anything like the "actual fundamental basis of the universe" in it's entirety, that is asking a bit too much.Since the notion of evidence presupposes probabilities as real, they are real according to evidence. There I'm done. Again any meaningful philosphical investigation of the issue, must not presuppose any possibility, probability, determination, to be real at all.edited to add: and why don't you give some of these significant turningpoints in the history of the universe, and of organisms, as from another thread. How you can know about these determinations, without admitting determinations exist, is beyond me.I know that Gould lamented the loss of the historical view within biology. It is no coincedence that Gould advanced the comet hitting the dinosaurs as an event which could have turned out another way. His lament of the loss of the historical view, is joined with his advocacy for evolutionists to at least recognize one single bloody determination of some significance in the entire history of life. An advocacy which he was much criticized for.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-06-2005 11:26 AM

It is just a matter of the dictionary.This is the first definition of evidence I found. Obviously I can't use this definition to investigate whether there is such a thing as a probability, because it presupposes probability.But since it talks about it being probalistic, I assume there might be a definition of evidence, that doesn't presuppose probability. Well you give it, I can't find it, or why don't you just discard your thesis that events can't turn out one way or another as irrelevant philosphy.http://www.xs4all.nl/...philosophy/Dictionary/E/Evidence.htm"Evidence: A statement S is evidence for (against) a theory T iff S is known to be true and there is a theory T' that is not known to be false and T' implies that T is more (less) probable given S.Note this is a probabilistic characterization of what counts as evidence for or against a theory T and that it depends on there being another theory T'. But this also covers the cases when T' implies T is true or T is false, i.e. the cases of deductive proof and deductive refutation."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are mistaken. I said that you should have a theory that makes you able to handle cases of a single individual, which you can't do if your theory is based on more than one individual to be there for it to apply. This does not require for every organism to be investigated individually.You are very pessimistic. There is sure more that can be done in this area once bright minds set themselves to it as a day to day task, in stead of fleeting philosphical meandering about it. It may be more simpler than you think it is, because not that many variables might matter much for something like eyes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't make a distinction between recognizing probabilities in human beings, and recognizing them outside of human beings. If you recognize probabilities in human beings, you have simply accepted probabilities, and you have no reason anymore to presuppose that they don't exist.And as before, I will simply engage the argument from ridicule, or incredulity. It is beyond reasonability to suppose that a speck of dust is predtermined to be there as it is, with that particular side of the dust upward, in that exact position to the millionth of a millimeter, after floating in the skies for a year.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You set up the strawman of probability with effects, and then proceed to knock it down saying probability doesn't have effects.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Want to engage some selfmoderating RAZD? It is all in your mind, you can't point to a single time where I said probabilities have effects, while you can point to about 5 times or so, where I say that probabilities don't have effects, they have realizations, decision, determinations.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are fooling people. Your idea about there not being any probabilities, is of the same sort, as those ideas that doubt existence altogether. The kind of argument where philosphers begin to talk about how "if a tree falling in a forest makes a sound or not". It is a philosphical meandering that has no place in science, it is not practiced at all.Probalities are assumed to be real in science, just as they are in common knowledge. It is just that on top of this use of probabilities as real, many scientists entertain a philophical theory that doubts the existence of them, as they also sometimes entertain philosphical theory that doubts the existence of anything.
The philosophising is just personal opinion, the existence of probabilities is treated as a matter of fact. Please don't try to fool people that your idea about a speck of dust flying through the skies for a year and landing exactly in a place as was predetermined a year ago, to the 1000th of a milimiter, has anything more than the authority of your personal opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I was under the impression that you were arguing counter to the position that probabilities exist. A counterposition that is refuted by simple ridicule and incredulity. Or refuted in terms of consistency, by making the person arguing the absence, to talk with words that don't presuppose any notion of posssibility, probability, uncertainty, whatsoever. If your position is that probabilities exist, despite your doubts about it, than I can simply discard your ideas as basicly irellevant to the issue at hand.I'm not inclined to go proving probabilities and realization on them as real, I'm inclined to proving that evolutionists ignore and deny that point at which a probability changes, as most well evidenced for instance, by most of them simply not having a name for it at all. That they surpress, and oppress the common and religious knowledge about it. For example in this thread it was somehow thought an error to attribute an owner to decisions, because such owners were not in evidence. Perhaps RAZD wishes us all to fall into an identity-crisis where we can't identify ourselves as the owner of our decisions, for the sole purpose to remain true to the crude and brutal religion of scientism.Syamsu:
a probability has a realizationRAZD rephrasing:
a probability has an effectI think this is the more perfect example of a strawman in this thread still.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Probability with effects is your strawman, which you continuously knock down, it is not your opinion of what is true, I thought that was well clear from the context. Go ahead and say that that there are no realizations occurring on any probabilities, that would be making some kind of argument. It would also be going right against the science about probabilities as far as I can tell.You produce much work in your reply.So when you calculated a probability of 1/2 of getting the right door it was also "equally true" as calculating a probability of 2/3? Why don't you just admit the obvious that some calculations are better approximations of the reality of probabilities than another.So when there is a 99 percent chance of X happening, that is basically irrellevant to X being realized? Mere philosphy. You do not act as though probabilities are irrellevant to realization, you will also switch doors to get the grandprize.You are simply stating that the relationship between a probability and a realization is not the same as the relation between a cause and an effect. This then allows you to say that probabilities are irrellevant to the realization. But that is merely stating a prejudice, the prejudice that only cause and effect relationships are relevant.And again your support for the truth that "anything can happen", is disengenious, because you don't recognize any point of decision, determination, choice as real whatsoever or give any meaningful name for that point where things truly can turn out one way or another.RAZD:
"Both would be equally valid even though they would place a different probability of X happening.When X happens which probability gets realized? Both.For both to be equally true, there has to be something unreal happening eh?Or the models just don't connect to the real world."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The argument from ridicule seems to work pretty well. Everytime I mention that determinacy is what you believe about specks of dust, you scurry to deny that it is what you believe about specks of dust. Well now you say that you are uncertain, on some completely meaningless philosphical level, that the speck of dust actually could have ended up differently.So but what about the holocaust again? Oh yes, that becomes also "unknown" if it could have turned out differently. Klaus Fischer knows. It could have turned out differently he says, but then I guess he's just a historian, and not such a hardnosed evolution scientist like you are.That's an argument from moral indignation, I guessYou have your own argument from ridicule I believe. That it is ridiculous to attribute an owner to determinations, if such determinations happen to take place outside the locality of a human brain. I'm pretty sure such ridicule has some effect in convincing people. But it is just a matter of ignorant laughter. As before these points of decision may relate to another in a structure, and so we can simply name that relationary structure as owner of the determinations. That is just a wild guess, but the fact is that your giggling about owners to determinations, just belies the fact that you never think about or acknowledge determinations. It is ignorance.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are arguing a strawman again. I'm saying that probabilities are relevant to the realizations / determinations on them. That part about calculations is all your own invention, not my argument.So it is relevant to know, that there is 99 percent chance of something happening. It is not just what happens, happens. What is determined happens.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu