Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The name for the point where a probability changes
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 186 (174439)
01-06-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Syamsu
01-06-2005 11:51 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu. double ditto?
syamsu writes:
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.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2005 11:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 186 (174441)
01-06-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by 1.61803
01-06-2005 12:58 PM


I would settle for
chaotic determinism
chaotic elements set up relatively deterministic results -- weather comes to mind
and 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2005 12:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2005 2:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 186 (174443)
01-06-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wounded King
01-06-2005 12:42 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
LOL
syamsu writes:
... beyond reasonability ...
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wounded King, posted 01-06-2005 12:42 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 186 (174445)
01-06-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Syamsu
01-06-2005 2:41 AM


The strawman strawman argument ...
syamsu writes:
So you can't bloody well repeat the same dullminded strawman over and over, without being called on it.
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)

Straw Man


Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
Examples:
(i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
should realize that there are more important things than
convenience.
Proof:
Show that the opposition's argument has been
misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
argument. Describe the stronger argument.
References
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2005 2:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2005 10:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 110 of 186 (174462)
01-06-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
01-06-2005 1:04 PM


Re: I would settle for
I am still puzzled about (weather)...ha ha.. or not randomness, such as radio active decay, or virtual particals, or the uncertainty principal are considered truly random. From what I have read and heard the universe is not purely deterministic. Science can predict reality if enough data is known and if we can model the system, but we can not KNOW because according to physics gurus the very nature of what makes up reality is not 100% certain, hence the uncertainty principal. I agree that probablility does not affect outcomes, it only allows us a confidence interval.
Pure determinism is impossible, even if you know 99.9999999out to infinity you still do not know the rest. Even if one atom is out of wack the whole apple cart is upset. Why I dig my heels in on this is obvious, I like the idea of free will. I have given up on the idea of a old testiment god, but this is my line in the cosmic sand. edit typo
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-06-2005 14:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 1:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 5:10 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 129 by Peeper, posted 01-07-2005 8:12 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 111 of 186 (174492)
01-06-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by 1.61803
01-06-2005 12:58 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
Hello, if randomness is indeed a phenomenon in reality, If identical starting points can produce different outcomes then how can one defend determinism?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2005 12:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 3:31 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 01-07-2005 3:38 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 186 (174495)
01-06-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by 1.61803
01-06-2005 2:27 PM


Re: I would settle for
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2005 2:27 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 113 of 186 (174547)
01-06-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
01-06-2005 1:22 PM


Re: The strawman strawman argument ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 1:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 11:00 PM Syamsu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 186 (174550)
01-06-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Syamsu
01-06-2005 10:49 PM


Re: The strawman strawman argument ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2005 10:49 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 3:17 AM RAZD has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 115 of 186 (174582)
01-07-2005 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
01-06-2005 11:00 PM


Re: The strawman strawman argument ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 11:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 7:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 116 of 186 (174584)
01-07-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Wounded King
01-06-2005 5:02 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Wounded King, posted 01-06-2005 5:02 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Wounded King, posted 01-07-2005 4:16 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 117 of 186 (174586)
01-07-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 3:31 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 3:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 5:08 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 118 of 186 (174591)
01-07-2005 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Wounded King
01-07-2005 4:16 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
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 realization
RAZD rephrasing:
a probability has an effect
I think this is the more perfect example of a strawman in this thread still.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Wounded King, posted 01-07-2005 4:16 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 01-07-2005 6:29 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 7:57 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 119 of 186 (174605)
01-07-2005 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 5:08 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
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.
A counterposition that is refuted by simple ridicule and incredulity.
Those don't actually refute anything.
For example in this thread it was somehow thought an error to attribute an owner to decisions, because such owners were not in evidence.
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?
I'm inclined to proving that evolutionists ignore and deny that point at which a probability changes
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.
That they surpress, and oppress the common and religious knowledge about it.
Once again you make use of that time honoured tool, the baseless assertion.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 5:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 2:21 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 186 (174618)
01-07-2005 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 3:17 AM


Re: The strawman strawman argument ...
they have realizations, decision, determinations.
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.
lol
This 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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 3:17 AM Syamsu 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