The name for the point where a probability changes

That's right no matter how meaningless, it's all magic.In "the blind watchmaker" Dawkins sought to put up the limit for proof of God's existence to a 1 in 10^50 probability being realized. If such a probability being realized was witnessed then he would accept it as convincing proof of God. (from memory, so Dawkins actual argument probably is a little different). But he never goes to address about what the other magnitudes of chances being realized prove. On 1 in 10^30 we may find proof of Santa Clause by this line of argument for instance, 1 in 10^10 an invisible pink unicorn, 1 in 10^20 the toothfairy....But all this just ignores the fact that you can't know even with a chance of 1 in 2. Ignores that any chance-realization neccessarily introduces an unknown. That is why later in the book Dawkins exclaims "chance is the enemy of science". This is certainly a mistake, because we can have knowledge about the probabilities involved, that knowledge increases our science. "chance and realization" is only an "enemy" to "cause and effect".edited to add:
The indications are that Dawkins is suffering from a religious problem. It is the problem of accepting the final judgement of God. Like this: you choose and *afterwards* God judges whether what you do is evil or good. Dawkins apparently wants to have it the other way, he wants to have the knowledge of good and evil *prior* to making the choice, rendering God's final judgement a futility. This is why he wants all knowledge to be of a predeterminist kind, where you can theoretically know all prior to choosing.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-13-2005 01:30 AM

I don't think that I said I accepted it, I said that I behave in my life as if I believed it. Probabilities are certainly invaluable for modelling and describing stochastic phenomena, I have never objected to the concept of probabilities being real, merely to your repeated unfounded assertion that that probability represents some fundamental mechanism of the universe where a 'determination' is actually taking place. Astoundingly you actually manage to state my position correctly for once. I don't neccessarily deny the holocaust was avoidable, I simply tend towards a philosophical viewpoint that would entail it being unavoidable, that is quite distinct from a historical viewpoint from which I see the holocaust as much more a problem of contingence and a confluence of events. I don't limit control to human beings, I just don't think you have any case for claiming some degree of motivation, other than in a mechanical sense, for a rock. Once again you completely misreresent my position. Is it reading comprehension you have a problem with or just being honest?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 03-Apr-2006 12:10 PM

If you offhandedly accept probabilities, you must also offhandedly accept determination or realization on the probabilities. The concept of probability doesn't work without it.I can simply disregard your need for the evidence which you speak of, since it shouldn't practically affect the way you describe things. It just affects your meta-philosophising. There is just a silent "maybe it's cause and effect after all" afterthought, every time you speak of a probability and realization.The role that your need for fundamental evidence plays, is of course suppresive and oppressive of knowledge about probabilities and realizations on them. If you just said you have some reservations in accepting any probability and realization for lack of fundamental evidence, then there wouldn't be a problem. But it is more like prejudice then it is a reservation, and the talk on this forum shows that it just tends for all knowledge to go towards "cause and effect" right down to consciousness even, by this inane prejudice.If I remember correctly it is you who first talked about a rock having some kind of motivation, denying it. I didn't bring up motivation of rocks. You made that link from determination to motivation yourself. I only brought up to have an owner to a determination. So it means I'm right in saying that people in general, including you, will tend to see some spiritual dimension to determinations. That is why you made the link from determination to motivation.You have little belief in events turning out one way or another, for anything except human beings, you don't go as far as to exclusively claim control to human beings.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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.

The argument doesn't destroy free will at all, it just destroys the notion that free will exists apart from everything else. We also have decsionmaking processes with several people involved, that doesn't destroy free will, and so neither does it destroy free will when God is involved in decisions.And besides you are of course destroying belief in free will as real, by your refusal to acknowledge realization on probabilities as describing reality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Don't you ever get dizzy with your own self contradictions?Or do you just not understand what even you are saying?

---

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

I'm not following this thread (with Syamsu in there why bother). However your post doesn't spell out the contradictions.When you are this critical of someone it would be better to show why that is fair right in the post being so critical.

I have posted several lists of same that are just ignored. I can't keep posting them over and over when the probability of them being addressed is (a) not changed by the action (b) close to zero based on past behavior.

Then don't bother with him at all. If you don't post there is no reason to critize your post.It might be polite to point out that you aren't going to bother anymore and supply, one more time, the reasons.

I am going to assume you don’t really mean this. Just because we can’t explain everything, is no reason to ignore the deterministic nature of those things we do understand. I do understand your quandary though in the definition of what we mean by deterministic. The same type of ambiguity occurs in the definition of causality in regards to the EPR paradox and superluminal influence.It appears, however, that you have a good understanding of what I am trying to say. The uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanics is in no way catastrophic to the (supposed) deterministic nature of the fundamental laws. Until we understand more about the reality of the wavefunction and wavefunction collapse, who can say what determines the nature of reality? Perhaps, as Wounded King suggested, we are merely thinking about this in the wrong way.

I understand what I'm saying, except when it is in reference to what you're saying. I have no clue what you mean with probabilities, chances not being real entities that can be discovered. You either have a chance of winning this debate, or you don't.I think it is all pretty much obvious that there is a glaring and substantial prejudice towards "cause and effect" in operation on the evolution-side. The resulting evolutionist base of knowledge can be ignored as much meaningless for not incorporating decisions. The generalised view in terms of laws and forces is worthless without an historical view in terms of decisions. The historical view in terms of decisions broadly substantiates creationism.I'm still convinced that this issue decides the creation vs evolution debate in it's entirety, and in favor of the creationists. Your criticism of chances not being real is just bizarre to me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

he was going on his G.U.T. instincts.

You are convinced of your own opinion. You want to believe. No problem.Your position however is nothing but a castle of sand in the air. You still have not answered any of the questions raised before that would in any way justify your position as anything more than a personal, self-fulfilling opinion.You have not demonstrated any objective reality.

---

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

I disagree of course. You can't find much of any interest to the creation vs evolution debate outside of threads I'm engaged in, because generally only I deal with the fundamental issues in the creation vs evolution debate. The formulation of natural selection, the prejudice towards cause and effect, the relationship of darwinism to ideology, all fundamental issues, and hardly discussed at all except when I start discussion about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I dealt with it all already. When Wounded King says that he basicly acts as though believing chances are real, and you I assume do the same, all criticism that they aren't real just becomes irrellevant philosophy. Your insistence on the value of your questions about chances being objectively real just goes to prove that there is a significant prejudice towards "cause and effect" on the evolutionist side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu