Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on other Planets?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 31 of 160 (594428)
12-03-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:10 PM


My scenario was not some kind of analogy per se (so it really doesn't pertain to your question)-its a real fact. If traditional statistics were correct it should not be possible for the hundred or so times that I have gambled in a casino, to only lose once (and actually there is a caveat to my one lose story-I bet all of my considerable winning from earlier in the day on one particular bet as a whim because I had won so much that day and was feeling stupid).
Are casinos in the business of losing money? The obvious answer is "no". So whose idea was it to put displays up on roulette wheels telling gamblers what the last 20 or so results were? It was the casino's idea. Why? It feeds right into the Gambler's Fallacy. If knowing the last 20 results from a roulette wheel really did tilt the advantage towards the gambler then the casinos would not put them up (they certainly are not required to by law). Even more importantly, casinos keep track of the results so they should know if these signs are tipping things one way or the other.
As to your personal results, I am sure that I can find someone who always loses to balance out your improbable winnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 32 of 160 (594436)
12-03-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
12-03-2010 12:21 PM


As to your personal results, I am sure that I can find someone who always loses to balance out your improbable winnings.
Well, very interesting. You do believe that seemingly unrelated events are actually somehow intertwined. Well, how about that. There is a cosmic balance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:35 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 33 of 160 (594439)
12-03-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:32 PM


Well, very interesting. You do believe that seemingly unrelated events are actually somehow intertwined. Well, how about that.
I am saying that they are not intertwined which is why I should be able to find someone who uses the same technique that has the exact opposite result that you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:40 PM Taq has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 34 of 160 (594447)
12-03-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
12-03-2010 12:35 PM


But that's not what you said at all is it. You said you can find someone who always loses to BALANCE out my improbable winnings.
I can understand why you aid this. Clearly you were thinking that for the stats will even themselves out over time, one wins another loses....
When does an anomaly constitute evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-03-2010 12:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 35 of 160 (594449)
12-03-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:40 PM


When does an anomaly constitute evidence?
When it isn't an anomaly. If you can show that using your betting strategy improves winnings over millions of bets and millions of players then it is no longer an anomaly.
The only betting methods that actually work are used in blackjack because your odds actually DO get better if you can keep track of the lower cards and higher cards left in the deck and adjust your betting accordingly. With a single deck and max/min betting you can actually get a 2% advantage on the house by counting cards. Not so with craps or roulette.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:40 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 160 (594452)
12-03-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:10 PM


If traditional statistics were correct it should not be possible for the hundred or so times that I have gambled in a casino, to only lose once
I call Bullshit.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:10 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 37 of 160 (594460)
12-03-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:01 AM


In fact I have calculated that I am right at least 75-85% of the time during an evenings worth of gambling. I won't go into the specifics here, but the thing is I always win. How can this be? Is it luck?
Well, it depends what you play. There are a couple casino games where you can use skill to beat the house. Poker, obviously, you can beat the house because you don't play against the house. Blackjack, you can use progressive betting strategies when the shoe is "hot", or contains a disproportionate number of cards that will cause the dealer to bust. It's possible to do pretty well at craps if you can recognize the tables with advantageous rules and use a betting system to minimize your buy-in losses and maximize your rewards.
But remember - you play against the house, but the house doesn't play against you. The house plays against everyone. Statistics describes random behavior in the aggregate, not in the specific, and in that context it is very reliable indeed. But statistics isn't a way to predict discreet outcomes at 100% certainty, it's a way to predict the distribution of aggregate outcomes. (A 60% chance of rain doesn't tell you that it will or won't rain today.) It may very well be the case that for every dollar you spend at the casino, you walk out with a dollar and ninety cents. But in aggregate, for every dollar that everybody is spending at the casino, they get eighty cents or so back. Your wins are basically a wealth transfer from the rest of the crowd to you, with the casino taking an enormous percentage for the privilege.
No individual example can prove statistics wrong, because statistics doesn't describe individual outcomes, it describes outcomes in aggregate. A .300 batting average doesn't tell you whether or not a batter will hit a home run on his next up at plate. It tells you how many home runs he'll hit in his next 100 at-bats.
So what are we to believe, what numbers can show or what empirical tests show (me).
You're not an empirical test, you're a single anecdote.
The point is that when stats say one thing and real life information says another, who do you believe?
Stats, because the difference proves your information is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 38 of 160 (594474)
12-03-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:01 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
So what are we to believe, what numbers can show or what empirical tests show (me).
The problem with your "empirical tests" is that they're not repeatable. Most people who try to reproduce your results will lose their shirts. We know that because casinos don't lose money. With a large sample, the statistics do work.
As for the topic, the chemistry of abiogenesis and the inevitability of evolution suggest that life has arisen and developed at many times and in many places in the universe. The liklihood that we will ever "discover" any of them (like Columbus discovered America) is not nearly as great as the likelihood that they exist(ed).

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 39 of 160 (594521)
12-03-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


Directly
Yes, I believe there is life on other planets.
I also have the ability to distinguish what I believe from what I know. My beliefs have a much higher probability of being wrong. If I were to end my investigations at the point of developing a belief I'd probably think something silly like "Of all the religions in the world, mine is the one true religion." or "Of all the problem gamblers in the world who think they always win, I'm the one who really does."

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 40 of 160 (594527)
12-03-2010 7:54 PM


Well, first off most casino don't really operate on the principal that they will make their little 2 percent or from percent from the odds. That wouldn't be enough for them to make the profits they shoot for. They are not in the business of odds, they are in the business of psychology. When people come to gamble, they want to gamble. if they are winning, they feel that it is not their money that they are winning, and thus become even more inclined to gamble. Most people don't say, oh I have a modest winning after an hour, I think I will go home now. What fun would that be. So if they are winning, they double up. Or if its late, they are getting tired after being there staring at meaningless numbers for six hours, they make rash decisions. No clocks, hard to find exits, lots of noise, these are all just tools of the trade of the psychology of the business. They don't care about odds, they have the ultimate advantage-the desire of everyone to be even richer, even the rich. Give someone 10 and they want 20, give em 20 and they want 40. And when they have 40, and it wasn't their 40 to begin with, its even easier to let it fly. So of course the casino will win, even if it were an exact fifty/ fifty game. If you double up enough at a fifty fifty game, you are going to lose eventually. Money gambled in a casino stays in a casino.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2010 8:11 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 8:28 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 160 (594528)
12-03-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
12-02-2010 11:32 PM


Hi, Dash.
I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe.
It's a big universe, which either means that there are inevitably many opportunities for life to emerge, leading to high probabilities that it has happened elsewhere, or that any Designer who is Intelligent would have thought up an efficient way to use all that space.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-02-2010 11:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 160 (594531)
12-03-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 7:54 PM


No more casinos
Well, first off most casino...
You started this thread. Are you going to address any of the comments we made, or are you just going to waste our time with off-topic issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 7:54 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 160 (594533)
12-03-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 7:54 PM


Well, first off most casino don't really operate on the principal that they will make their little 2 percent or from percent from the odds.
No, they make about 20% or so.
You can calculate their take from the odds, by calculating the expected return value. You'll find that every casino runs about .75 to .8 expected value - that is, for every dollar a player bets in a game, they should expect to get about eighty cents back.
Again, this is aggregate, not specific. Some people are going to lose all their money, some people are going to win. Overall, the casino keeps twenty cents out of every dollar that gets played.
They are not in the business of odds, they are in the business of psychology.
No, 100% wrong. Casinos are in the odds business. They're in the business of aggregating dollars. You have the experience of putting some money on black and letting it ride. The casino has the experience of taking $100,000 in bets every hour and only having to pay out $80,000 in wins. That's $20,000 an hour for doing nothing more than keeping the lights on.
There's literally nothing "gambling" about what the casino is doing. Running a casino is a lot like pouring a crowd through a sieve where they pass through but their money stays behind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 7:54 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 8:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 160 (594534)
12-03-2010 8:30 PM


So now let's talk about psychology and numbers. By my findings, when asking evolutionists if they believe in life on other planets, you get a virtual 100% affirmative response-as we have seen in our sample here (I won't include GDR because nothing is affirmative in his world, because for us his world doesn't exist.) Now how can that be, that 100% of the people here say yes, its either likely, or they believe it is true-and yet those exact same people absolutely scoff at the notion that there is a God. If you asked the exact same question and just replaced it with God, the numbers would totally flip flop. You see this here on this forum all the time. how often do you all keep repeating the same old lines-why would you believe in some magic fairy? What proof do you have of a God? Why in the world would you believe in something that you have no empirical evidence of?
Just look at how laughable coyote's response is:
Unlike religionists, scientists tend to follow the evidence where it leads, not rely on 3,000 year old texts written by goat-herders and other mystics.
Life on other planets is probable, but there is little evidence either way. I'll wait until there is. Unlike you; you appear to firmly "believe" such life can't exist.
He is trying to condemn ME for not believing that life on other planets exists! Which is odd, not only because I never made a comment about whether I believe it does or not, but more pertinently because he spends his whole existence on this forum stating unequivocally that a God surely doesn't exist! As do 90 % of the evolutionists here. Some may be agnostic on the issue, but even those who are agnostic about it don't go around saying "well, I don't know, but it sure seems likely, or probable, or you would think so...."all of the types of comments you would get when you ask them about life on other planets.
So I think this paints about as clear a picture as one can get in the God no God issue. One could very easily argue that there is much more evidence for a God than there is for life on other planets, let's be honest here. We do have laws of nature, and physical properties and physical constants in the world-so these had to come from some where. We also have consciousness, which nobody can really explain adequately via a chaos model of the world. And if we don't have chaos we have order, and thus the evidence for some kind of force behind the order becomes pretty high.
So it kind of puts the whole evolutionist constant nagging about needing evidence to believe, and taking the skeptical approach, and simply being interested in a search for the truth as a not very genuine sentiment, intentionally or unintentionally. You like Star Trek, you are a bunch of star gazing tech geeks, and you love fantasizing about what aliens might look like. You also dislike the politics of religion, and you don't like the idea of being under the control of a mystical force. Its a purely psychological divide-not a rational one.
Are there exceptions, sure. But as you all well believe in the power of numbers, these are just anomalies, and in the end star gazing geeks are going to believe in UFO's and not believe in a God. It doesn't matter one lick what the real evidence is. You are predisposed to want to believe in one and not the other. Either through your perceptions of religion, or you love of fantasy worlds (I wonder how many Star Trek/Sci Fi fans are here? No I don't need to wonder, you all are.)
You are not about believing what the evidence shows, no matter how often and how vociferously you claim this. You are a victim of your personality, which prefers one thing, and not another. It is not about which is more likely, an alien is no more likely than a God. And yet 100% of you believe in aliens! Pretty darn amazing stats.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 12-03-2010 8:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 8:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2010 9:01 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 12-03-2010 9:33 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 160 (594535)
12-03-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 8:30 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
One could very easily argue that there is much more evidence for a God than there is for life on other planets, let's be honest here.
You might be able to assert that but I doubt highly that you or anyone else could support that position; but what the hell does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 8:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024