What were the chances of me being born? [Archive]

chance

21st July 2004, 08:00 PM

Interesting Ian I mean assuming materialism is true. Did my parents need to be born and to form a sexual relationship? But that of course is absurd because each of them would need to have had their parents to have been born and to have met up; and the same going back to when first life appeared on Earth! So that can't be right. So could I have been born to different parents??

And does a particular unique sperm have to fertilize a particular unique egg? Or are all sperm/eggs identical from the same individual? Excuse my ignorance.

If someone could give me a probability of me having been born I would appreciate it. What is absurd by having to have your parents, then grand parents, great grand parents etc bond, taken all the way back to primitive life? Why can’t that be right? This is the mechanism evolution predicts.

No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Sperm and eggs are as individual as people are (my biology is a bit rusty in this area, but either sperm and egg are unique, or the uniqueness comes about during the fusion of egg or sperm, possibly both) (else all brothers and sisters would be identical and not just resemble their siblings).

Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?

Nasarius

21st July 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by chance
No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA.

Why not? The human genome is only about 30,000 genes. The probability of hitting the same combination twice (disregarding identical twins) is low, but certainly possible.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Nasarius
Obviously not, otherwise every child of the same parents would be exactly the same :)

Ah yes, forgot about that :)

But that gives rise to another thought.

Are identical twins exactly the same person then?

Anyway, is each sperm and each egg unique? Or are some sperm from the same individual absolutely identical??

PS Just looked at rest of your post. So you're saying some sperm could be identical?

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
You haven't been born yet? The probability of an event that has already happened is 1. Since you were born some number of years ago, the probility of that event is 1.

For Christ sake. I'm asking what was the probability of me being born. If that probability is sufficiently low, then we can discard it as being something that would have happened.

So what was the probability??

Please answer my question!

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by chance
[B]Interesting Ian What is absurd by having to have your parents, then grand parents, great grand parents etc bond, taken all the way back to primitive life? Why can’t that be right? This is the mechanism evolution predicts.

Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.

No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Sperm and eggs are as individual as people are (my biology is a bit rusty in this area, but either sperm and egg are unique, or the uniqueness comes about during the fusion of egg or sperm, possibly both) (else all brothers and sisters would be identical and not just resemble their siblings).

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.

Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?

Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.

Nasarius

21st July 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian Are identical twins exactly the same person then?
Genetically? Yes. But it's your experiences that make up the bulk of "who" you are, how you act, personality, etc, so even twins raised in the same environment are likely to be quite different people.

Anyway, is each sperm and each egg unique? Or are some sperm from the same individual absolutely identical??
2^23 is less than 84 million. IIRC, many millions of sperm are produced per day, so many will be identical.

chance

21st July 2004, 08:26 PM

nasariuschance> No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Why not? The human genome is only about 30,000 genes. The probability of hitting the same combination twice (disregarding identical twins) is low, but certainly possible. I thinks it’s more complicated than that, else you could divide 30,000 into the world population of (3 billion I think) resulting in 10,000 identical people alive today.

chance

21st July 2004, 08:33 PM

Interesting Ian chance> What is absurd by having to have your parents, then grand parents, great grand parents etc bond, taken all the way back to primitive life? Why can’t that be right? This is the mechanism evolution predicts.
Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.
Not so, high probability does not exclude it happening. I think you are looking at the situation as if stating "what would be the probability of this event happening twice".

chance> No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Sperm and eggs are as individual as people are (my biology is a bit rusty in this area, but either sperm and egg are unique, or the uniqueness comes about during the fusion of egg or sperm, possibly both) (else all brothers and sisters would be identical and not just resemble their siblings).

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.
No problem, you are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all.

chance> Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?
Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.
Which is?

NoZed Avenger

21st July 2004, 08:38 PM

the chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain.

NoZed Avenger

21st July 2004, 08:42 PM

The chance for any single person to win the lottery is incredibly, incredibly low.

Obviously, therefore, no one can possibly explain why there was a winner last week, because using materialistic science, no one should ever win.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by chance
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> What is absurd by having to have your parents, then grand parents, great grand parents etc bond, taken all the way back to primitive life? Why can’t that be right? This is the mechanism evolution predicts.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so, high probability does not exclude it happening. I think you are looking at the situation as if stating "what would be the probability of this event happening twice".

Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> No, you can’t be born to different parents (in a materialistic world) you are a unique combination of DNA. Sperm and eggs are as individual as people are (my biology is a bit rusty in this area, but either sperm and egg are unique, or the uniqueness comes about during the fusion of egg or sperm, possibly both) (else all brothers and sisters would be identical and not just resemble their siblings).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem, you are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all.

You need to exercise a great deal of suspicion that an event has occurred which only had an phenomenally small chance of occurring. How many Lotto winners do you know? I haven't been one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chance> Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?

Yes someone has to win the Lotto, but it's an extremely small chance that it will be me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is?

Well, I'll let you think it over first. A little bit of thinking should make an intelligent person realize how silly this position that you and others are advocating is.

Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Hell, what would be the probability of the human race eventually arising?? Or could I have been a non-human sentient being???

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
the chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Another idiot who fails to understand :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The chance for any single person to win the lottery is incredibly, incredibly low.

Obviously, therefore, no one can possibly explain why there was a winner last week, because using materialistic science, no one should ever win.

If in fact the chance of winning the lottery was phenomenally smaller than it is now, then no specific individual could, in effect, win.

Donks

21st July 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If in fact the chance of winning the lottery was phenomenally smaller than it is now, then no specific individual could, in effect, win.

Is there a specific limit for this chance below which no specific individual could, in effect, win?

Taffer

21st July 2004, 09:29 PM

You are all forgetting genetic crossover during Meiosis. This extends the number of possible combinations into an almost infinite number.

The problem, Ian, is that you cannot look at something in the past and say "what was the probability that it happened" simply because it has happened, therefore the probability has to be 1.

Let me explain further, the 'probability' of the universe 'developing' from the big bang with the specific features and physical properties to enable life is increadibly increadibly small (in fact, this is one argument by creationists as to why it must have been designed), but of course, seeing as we are here, the probability means nothing. It has happened, therefore it was possible.

Also, to calculate a probability, you would need to know the other possible outcomes, and because you were born and all of the other possible outcomes were not, you cannot calculate the probability.

Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.

espritch

21st July 2004, 09:30 PM

Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.

You and 4 billion other equally unique people.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Taffer
You are all forgetting genetic crossover during Meiosis. This extends the number of possible combinations into an almost infinite number.

The problem, Ian, is that you cannot look at something in the past and say "what was the probability that it happened" simply because it has happened, therefore the probability has to be 1.

No. I am not asking about the probability of a past event. You're wrong.

I'll explain tomorrow.

Also, to calculate a probability, you would need to know the other possible outcomes, and because you were born and all of the other possible outcomes were not, you cannot calculate the probability.

We can work it out. It's the figure of all possible combinations of all possible sperm and all possible eggs that could have come into being

Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.

Huh??? :eek: Don't be utterly absurd! It's not 1 over the actual number of people now alive. Nor is it 1 over the number of people who have ever lived. Rather it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived.

Craven!

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by espritch
Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You and 4 billion other equally unique people.

Yes. The chances of any of us ever being born is in effect zero.

4 billion multiplied by a phenomenally small number, is still a phenomenally small number.

Interesting Ian

21st July 2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Is there a specific limit for this chance below which no specific individual could, in effect, win?

No.

chance

21st July 2004, 10:13 PM

Interesting Ian
II> Because the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.
chance> Not so, high probability does not exclude it happening. I think you are looking at the situation as if stating "what would be the probability of this event happening twice".
II> Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.
If this were true then nothing could ever happen as the probability of any event, is likely to be insignificant to all possible alternatives. Zero does not equal 0.000000001. Or look at it this way, calculate the odds of lightning striking the ground at a certain point, and you will get some very low number, but what are the odds of that same lighting bolt contacting the ground, a certainty, and yet they are the same event. This is the same as the Lotto argument – what are the odds of me winning against what are the odds of some individual winning (one is low the other a certainty [jack pot events not included]).

II> Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.
chance> No problem, you are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all.
II> You need to exercise a great deal of suspicion that an event has occurred which only had an phenomenally small chance of occurring. How many Lotto winners do you know? I haven't been one.
No suspicion is required, it’s a certainty that the event will happen (i.e. there will be a lotto winner), but after the event, when reflecting that you have been selected, gives the impression of beating impossible odds.

chance> Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right?
II> Yes someone has to win the Lotto, but it's an extremely small chance that it will be me.
and me, join the club.

II> Ah, yes I see the fallacy you and others are making.
chance> Which is?
Well, I'll let you think it over first. A little bit of thinking should make an intelligent person realize how silly this position that you and others are advocating is.

Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Hell, what would be the probability of the human race eventually arising?? Or could I have been a non-human sentient being???
The probability of ‘you’ being born would be:
One to, Astronomically large number, to the power of, huge number, against. Conversely the probability of some thing being born would be certain. You can prove this yourself with a simple experiment. Take a dart, and through it at the dart board, calculate the odds of getting 20 (if your as crappy at darts as I am that will be one in 20, or worse), calculate the odds of striking the 20 zone exactly 3cm vertically down (that should be the diameter of the point, into the area of the dart board), yet in both these events the ‘principle’ event (dart striking the board) is 100% certain. (note hitting the wire doesn’t count, neither does totally missing the board, you may have another try).

Well Interesting Ian I certainly look forward to you explaining why you think it is a ‘silly position’, and I trust you will not repeat the, ‘the odds are too fantastically high’ that you have put forward so far, as this is a false way of looking at the numbers.

Taffer

21st July 2004, 10:15 PM

I could take offence, but I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I'm afraid, to me, it is you who does not understand. There is no way to predict the number of possible outcomes. Sperm and eggs are not simply a combination of random chromasomes. They are also combinations of your two chromosomes, which happens during (I believe) the metaphase 1 of Meiosis. The two chromosomes can swap genetic material anywhere along the chromosome. To know this, you would have to be able to map all of your chromosomes, in relation to your parents'. Ok, I guess if, given enough technology, it would be possible. But the notion is still flawed, because 'You' is not just a combination of genes. You are also a combination of events. To produce 'You' as you are now, took your entire life worth of events. It is not, at all, possible to say if another 'You' were produced, that they would have the exact same experiences.

Further more, as I said earlier, the chance of producing you is exactly 1. Even if you look at it from a past perspective, you would have to know the chance of all of the genetic material combining into your genome, and the probability of all of the experiences that you have been through during your life. The latter is the problem, as some events are random...one off chances. I doubt that anyone could ever discover the probability of all of these chances coming together, as, for example, the chance of you being hit by a car is about as equal as you being hit by a meteor, for all we know. If it were possible to calculate all of these probabilites, it STILL wouldn't tell us anything, because it is obvious that, no matter the probability, it still occured didn't it? You are here, I am here. Every person is unique, and thus we are all here. If you wanted to calculate the probability of you being born, it would equate to 1, because you were born.

Prester John

22nd July 2004, 12:46 AM

I had a similar thought along the lines of What are the chances of me being here in the year 2004, why not 20,004 or 204, why the UK etc. I've got a feeling its something to do with conciousness, and the probability is 1. Interesting thought tho'.

Art Vandelay

22nd July 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Nasarius
Genetically? Yes.
Actually, identical twins don't necessarily have exactly the same genes.

Chance
I thinks it’s more complicated than that, else you could divide 30,000 into the world population of (3 billion I think) resulting in 10,000 identical people alive today.
If everyone has a name that's less than a hundred letters long, does that mean that there are 60 million people with the same name? 30,000 is the number of genes, not the number of different genetic states. Even if each gene has only two states, that's 2^3,000~=10^900, or googol^9. If the entire solar system were filled with water, the number of atoms wouldn't even come close to that number.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 12:59 AM

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 7/22/04 at 7:19:15 GMT (7/22/04 at 3:19:15 AM EDT) is 6,381,878,026
Source (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw)

I'm a bit surprised so see so many wrong estimates of the world's population.

Beausoleil

22nd July 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Low probability you mean I take it? Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

You're confusing the probability of a specific event with the probability of some event.

If you play a hand of poker, you can always look at the cards and realise how unlikely it is that you should get those particular cards. But the probability that you will get some set of cards given that you are playing poker is high.

Finally, what makes your question poorly formed is the absence of a "given". Do you mean "given that my parents met, what are the chances that a baby would ensue" or do you mean "given that life started on Earth...". In the former case, one might be able to calculate the probability that an individual with your particular genetic information would be born, but the low probability would have no significance, just as the low probability of the particular cards you get at poker has no significance.

Lothian

22nd July 2004, 01:24 AM

Ian,

Your arguments are very similar to the hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy's assertion that there are no people in the universe. Your theory is flawed for similar reasons.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 03:27 AM

Hi Ian

Makes it even more fantastically low. Seems like the materialists have a problem.

I can see no problem for materialists here, in fact I can not conceive of a way of twisting things even in the way you can, in to making this a problem for materialists! But I look forward to you providing the reason.

By the way I agree that the probability of you existing is 1, the probability of a predicted individual being born some time in the future is very very low, but not zero.

Simon.

MacGuffin

22nd July 2004, 03:57 AM

The avg number of sperm discharged in a single ejaculation is 135,000,000. Then there are all sorts of variables, how many times did your dad ejaculate over his life, how many kids did he have, how many women was he with? Probably more variables as well, but I think we would all agree the chances you popped out were quite small.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron

exarch

22nd July 2004, 04:42 AM

Well Ian, if I kicked you out of an airplane 6 miles up (I would be a JREF hero no doubt :D), what are the odds of you ending up in the driveway of Mrs. Franklin at 12 Garden street in Liverpool? well, once you're down there, the probability of that having happened is 1, although, at the moment my foot made contact with your sorry *ss, even the tiniest difference could have meant you ended up across town in the compost heap of Mr Wilkins at 63 Wilmont road.

Anyway, the odds of the end product of your parents having a go at it turning out to be you are indeed very small, but that doesn't mean they are 0.

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 05:16 AM

I think it could even be argued that it is virtually impossible to calculate the probability that a newborn would have the genome it ended up with. When cells mature into sperm or egg cells there is a process called crossing-over where the chromosomes exchange genetic material between your own father and mother chromosome. So the end result, the sperm or egg cell is a mosaic of your own material, otherwise a couple could only have four different combinations which is obviously not true. As far as I know this mosaic or crossing-over is not determined, you dont know if its going to be 50-50 or 90-10 for one particular sperm or egg cell.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 05:57 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If someone could give me a probability of me having been born I would appreciate it. Are you asking: "Before I was born, what was the probability that I would be born?"
If so, the answer depends on at what time before you were born this question is being asked. (obviously, you couldn't have asked the question yourself. ;) )......

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Meanwhile, let's suppose some being was around 4.6 billion years ago when life was just beginning on Earth. What would the probability of me being born work out as?? Vanishingly small.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived. Yes. A vanishingly small number.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
.....the probability of me having been born would have been too fantastically low; yet here I am.The astronomically large number of people, that "could conceivably have lived" but didn't, cannot ask that question.
Does that shine any light on your difficulty or do I still not understand your question.

BillyJoe

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:02 AM

Taffer
Howevever, if my life depended on it, I would have to say that the probability of any single person being born is 1/the population of the earth. That is to say, very very very very very very very very very very small. But it means nothing, because of the above arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II
Huh??? Don't be utterly absurd! It's not 1 over the actual number of people now alive. Nor is it 1 over the number of people who have ever lived. Rather it is 1 over the number of people that could have conceivably have lived.

Actually it is not conceivably have lived as in how it could conceivably have played out. Rather what we're talking about here is the total number of possible selves. Now . . .

Art Vandelay said:
30,000 is the number of genes, not the number of different genetic states. Even if each gene has only two states, that's 2^3,000~=10^900, or googol^9. If the entire solar system were filled with water, the number of atoms wouldn't even come close to that number.

But he was only assuming that a gene has only 2 states. How many states can a gene have??

Anyway, so the chance of me ever having been born is, at the very most, 1/googol^9 (assuming the correctness of Art Vandelay's reasoning).

Pretty small huh???

Indeed, if we take every human being that has ever lived - maybe about 100 billion or so - the probability that any one of them would ever live, either in the past or sometime in the future would be of a comparable small probability.

Yet here we all are. Thus materialism has a problem.

And I know what people are saying. I mean it is pretty damn obvious :rolleyes: Basically you are all saying I can only think about how unlikely I was born because I was actually born. Therefore necessarily the chance of me having been born is 1.

This is hopelessly flawed which I will explain in good time.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

The astronomically large number of people, that "could conceivably have lived" but didn't, cannot ask that question.
Does that shine any light on your difficulty or do I still not understand your question.
[/B]

Just made the same point myself. And congratulations on being the only one to puit it in such a clear fashion (well apart from me. I didn't see your post until I had posted my post).

I think you understand my question, but your response is not satisfactory. I will explain why later on.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:12 AM

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are identical twins exactly the same person then?"Persons" are fictions created by brains (I thought we'd settled that point a long time ago :) ) . Also remember the teleporter discussions (oops, no, let's not remember that. :D )

In any case, are identical things, the same thing? No.
Are identical universes, the same universe? No.
Are identical people within identical universes the same person? No.

And, no, identical twins (if there are such things) are not the same person.

IMO,
BillyJoe

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 06:21 AM

Besides, if the identical twins were females they may or may not be identical since one of the X-chromosones are turned off for females, and since its random which one it is, its a 50% chance they wont be identical.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:25 AM

Ian,

Are you saying that materialism predicts something quite different from what we have just agreed has actually occurred?

BillyJoe

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

"Persons" are fictions created by brains (I thought we'd settled that point a long time ago :) ) .

No, you have not argued that. You argued that consciousness is a fiction created by the brain.

I absolutely agree that the materialist has to say a person or self has to be a fiction i.e a materialist cannot believe in a self. What our argument was over was the notion that consciousness is just a fiction. The self can be a fiction but not consciousness. That's nonsensical.

Also remember the teleporter discussions (oops, no, let's not remember that. :D )

In any case, are identical things, the same thing?

Yes they are if you're talking about numerical identity. If a copy were made of me and created in an indistinguishable room to the original, then we would both in fact be one person, and we would perform actually the same actions so long as our environment were identical.

No.
Are identical universes, the same universe? No.
Are identical people within identical universes the same person? No.

And, no, identical twins (if there are such things) are not the same person.

They should be if they have the same genetic makeup.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Vitnir
Besides, if the identical twins were females they may or may not be identical since one of the X-chromosones are turned off for females, and since its random which one it is, its a 50% chance they wont be identical. Yeah but, besides that.
(f they were actually identical, they would still not be the same)

Goodnight,
BillyJoe
(By which I mean I'm going to bed)

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ian,

Are you saying that materialism predicts something quite different from what we have just agreed has actually occurred?

BillyJoe

If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence. And this is not considering all the other devastating attacks on materialism.

wollery

22nd July 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Well Ian, if I kicked you out of an airplane 6 miles up (I would be a JREF hero no doubt :D), what are the odds of you ending up in the driveway of Mrs. Franklin at 12 Garden street in Liverpool? well, once you're down there, the probability of that having happened is 1, although, at the moment my foot made contact with your sorry *ss, even the tiniest difference could have meant you ended up across town in the compost heap of Mr Wilkins at 63 Wilmont road.Arr eh kidder, why d'you 'ave to boot 'im out over Liverpool? :mad:

And if you must, please try to avoid Mrs. Franklins place, she's a very nice old lady, but her heart's a bit weak and I don't think it would take the shock. ;)

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:46 AM

Ian,

You're keeping me up late.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, you have not argued that. You argued that consciousness is a fiction created by the brain. Hmmm.....don't remember that. All I remember saying is that consciousness is created by the brain. That consciousness is not something separate from the brain.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If a copy were made of me and created in an indistinguishable room to the original, then we would both in fact be one person, and we would perform actually the same actions so long as our environment were identical. I would say that there would be two different but identical Ians. There would be two different but identical selves in two different but identical rooms.

But I think we're straying off-topic,

BillyJoe

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence.I think we are all waiting to hear the reason......

22nd July 2004, 06:49 AM

I.I., normally I just ignore your non-sensical posts - however, I feel I must step in.

First, you are making a fundamental error regarding probability. It's a common error, though few are really aware of it.

Let me see if I can explain this - it's hard for me. Words are difficult.

Anyway -

A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2).

So, if you flip a coin once, it may come up heads, but there's a pretty even chance that it won't.

BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads.

Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form.

With the Universe being as large as it is, the astronomically low chance of life forming on Earth becomes a certainty, as does any and all other probable events whose probability falls under the total event population of the Universe. In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time.

Of course, when determining the probability that you would be born, we have to add in factors such as environment, energy fluxuations, gravity, social conditions, etc. ad infinitum; yet even so, given a large enough possible system for generation of Ians, Ian must be formed.

Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak.

Of course, probability DOES suggest that, in spite of the odds, no oak will ever grow; but given the sheer number of probable events that never occur, that we are unaware of, those that do are by no means a materialistic mystery.

I hope that helps clear things up in someone's mind.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I.I., normally I just ignore your non-sensical posts - however, I feel I must step in.

First, you are making a fundamental error regarding probability. It's a common error, though few are really aware of it.

Let me see if I can explain this - it's hard for me. Words are difficult.

Anyway -

A probability represents the concept that, out of a number of attempts X that a certain event will only occur Y times out of X. For instance, the simplest probability is that, when flipping a coin, there is a 1 in 2 chance that the coin will land heads-up. (Of course, this is not quite true - there is a very small chance of the coin landing on edge, which means the chance for heads or tails is something on the order of 0.998 in 2).

So, if you flip a coin once, it may come up heads, but there's a pretty even chance that it won't.

BUT - Once you start flipping coins repeatedly, the chance of the coin coming up heads becomes a statistical certainty. All you have to do is exceed the X factor by a sufficient degree, and inevitably, the coin will land heads.

Likewise, if we assume that the chance of a star forming is, say, 1 in 10^999, then all we have to have are the conditions prerequisite for star formation in 10^999+ areas - What the degree of excess is, I don't know, but if, say, the universe contained 10^2000 areas capable of forming stars, then stars will form.

With the Universe being as large as it is, the astronomically low chance of life forming on Earth becomes a certainty, as does any and all other probable events whose probability falls under the total event population of the Universe. In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time.

Of course, when determining the probability that you would be born, we have to add in factors such as environment, energy fluxuations, gravity, social conditions, etc. ad infinitum; yet even so, given a large enough possible system for generation of Ians, Ian must be formed.

Let's say, for example, that you wanted an oak tree, but the chance of a planted seed growing was 1 in 100. All you have to do to ensure an oak will grow is to plant slightly more than 100 seeds, and you WILL have an oak.

Of course, probability DOES suggest that, in spite of the odds, no oak will ever grow; but given the sheer number of probable events that never occur, that we are unaware of, those that do are by no means a materialistic mystery.

I hope that helps clear things up in someone's mind.

Your post is as worthless as all the others arguing against me.

davidhorman

22nd July 2004, 06:59 AM

Yet here we all are. Thus materialism has a problem.

What's the problem?

If you have a couple trying to procreate, the probability that they'll produce a baby is pretty good. The probability that they'll produce a specific baby out of all the possible babies that they could create is tiny.

If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. No problem.

David

richardm

22nd July 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If materialism is correct, then I should not find myself in existence. And this is not considering all the other devastating attacks on materialism.

But... there are billions of combinations of genes that your parents could have produced that did, in fact turn out not to exist at this moment. Your particular combination just happens to have survived.

In a way, you're looking at the problem in the wrong way - you're saying "I'm here - it's almost impossible odds", which is true. But if that combination hadn't occurred, you simply wouldn't be here to discuss it, just like the billions of other combinations that aren't here. It's just a happy fluke, is all. You're here, so you can muse on the amazingness of it. But you just as easily might not be.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In fact, the chance of you, in particular, being born is a certainty, given the astronomical numbers of sperm and eggs being randomly combined all over the world at any given time. :nope:

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
:nope:

What he said

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman
If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. :confused: I'm not sure what this means.

22nd July 2004, 07:12 AM

Once again, rather than understanding what is being said, you simply choose to lump all arguments against you as worthless.

EDIT - removed personal slurs/attacks.

Apologies, Ian - it's just you make me so angry when you refuse to consider any facts presented, if they somehow invalidate your opinion. What I stated is pretty basic statistics and probability - I imagine it's relatively irrefutable. In fact, it would be enlightening if you would take the time and effort to explain WHY you feel it is worthless, rather than making an off-hand assertion that it is so.

However, as per your usual pattern, if something is stated that in some way undermines your opinions, you simply tune it out and hope it goes away. Alas, the world does not work in this fashion.

Seriously, if you have a dispute with what I posted, please illuminate this humble body, that we may all understand WHY you feel my post to be worthless.

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Once again, rather than understanding what is being said, you simply choose to lump all arguments against you as worthless.

EDIT - removed personal slurs/attacks.No, you don't.....

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I.I., you are truly hopeless. What a pathetic, worthless waste of a sperm cell and an egg you've turned out to be!

Do us all a favor - don't assert the probability of your children onto our world, please... let your failed genetics die.
I caught it just in time. :D

And with that, I am truly going to bed. :)

BillyJoe

22nd July 2004, 07:38 AM

Billy Joe, you may officially lick my testes now... :D

Yes, I took the opportunity to speak inappropriately, and I retracted, albeit too slowly to prevent B.J. (interesting!) from sucking it up...

Again, apologies, Ian, and please, just explain WHY you think it's worthless.

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Apologies, Ian - it's just you make me so angry when you refuse to consider any facts presented,...

I know I'm probably wasting my time telling you this but I'm bored so I don't mind wasting time. Ian's intent is to make you mad. There really is nothing more to it. He understands the flaws in his argument. He understood them before he made them. Do yourself a favor and find some particular aspect of this thread that is worthy of discussion --- presumably with someone that is worthy of discussing it with --- and go from there.

Sorry if I butted in unnecessarily. The probability that you too were probably just having fun approaches 1.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your post is as worthless as all the others arguing against me.

Ahh, I see still using the same debating tactics then Ian. :(

Any chance you will enlighten us anytime soon?

I'm waiting to be impressed.

Simon.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, if we take every human being that has ever lived - maybe about 100 billion or so - the probability that any one of them would ever live, either in the past or sometime in the future would be of a comparable small probability. (a+b^n)/n=x; donc Dieu existe. Répondez.

Rob Lister

22nd July 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
(a+b^n)/n=x; donc Dieu existe. Répondez.

This is off topic --- assuming that's possible for this topic --- but I've got to say that while I love your avatar, I cannot figure out what's on your lip. Is it a herpes sore you're covering with makeup?

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
This is off topic --- assuming that's possible for this topic --- but I've got to say that while I love your avatar, I cannot figure out what's on your lip. Is it a herpes sore you're covering with makeup? Smallpox scar. I'm much better now. :D

Robin

22nd July 2004, 08:24 AM

This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability

(my italics)

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

So I think that the original question is based on a misunderstanding of probability but it also misunderstanding of materialism.

Materialists deal with what is, not what should be.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 08:32 AM

Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

So the machine is set in motion. Extraordinarily the first card selected is the Ace of Hearts! Of course this scarcely gives me much hope. There's 9 cards to go! But then the next card selected from the next deck is the Ace of Hearts. And it transpires that each and every one of the cards drawn is the Ace of Hearts. The loony then enters the room. Here is the ensuing conversation:

II: WOW!! :eek: That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that you would still be alive (Scribble).

II. Huh?? :eek:

Loony: The probability of a past event is, by definition, 1. (chulbert)

II: Yes I know, but you're missing the point. Look, you surely must admit that the fact I'm alive is absolutely extraordinary.

Loony: Not at all. Probability – obviously you are here so it’s a one (against some rather big number of possible alternative histories). Someone has to win lotto, right? (chance)

II: Jesus! You really are Content removed for violation of Rule 8 stupid!! :mad:

Loony: Ah! Insults. This necessitates you have lost the argument.

II: {screams} You complete and total dumb Content removed for violation of Rule 8 !!

Loony: I kidnapped you in the first place because none of your arguments have any merit. I thought I'd do the world a favour and get rid of you by killing you. Thought I'd make it a bit entertaining by using this machine. Since it failed to kill you the first time, I'll just set it in motion again

II: {last despairing scream as the machine starts again} You complete moron!

----------------------------------

But again the machine draws 10 Ace of Heart cards. Loony re-enters the room.

------------------------------------

II. Wow!! Gosh!! It's happened again!! :eek:

Loony: From your perspective this is not at all surprising. You are a lotto winner of life, against the probability of a different selection, that all. (Chance)

II. You idiot!

Loony: Right, that's it!

{He starts the machine again. Again 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn. So he starts the machine again. He runs the machine a further 100 times, and each and every single time 10 Ace of Hearts are drawn, leaving II still alive. Loony re-enters the room}.

II. OK I'm still alive. Do you now agree something peculiar is going on? In effect this just can't happen.

Loony: Are you saying the chance is zero? If not it could happen, and the fact it has happened should not at all be surprising to you since if you had have been killed you wouldn't be here to think about it.

II: Nothing excludes it happening unless it's a chance of 0. But if the chance is so incredibly fantastically low, so as to be as close to 0 chance as damn it, then the fact the event in question has occurred means that something doesn't add up.

Loony: {In sarcastic tone} The chance of any individual raindrop hitting a particular spot on my driveway is incredibly, incredibly small.

Obviously, therefore, my drvieway never gets wet in the rain. (NoZed Avenger)

II You complete and total retard! :mad:

Loony: Right! That's it! I'm setting the machine off again! :mad:

II. No! Please please. Just use a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 gun!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is basically the discussion I've been having with you lot. Does the analogy make it clear why your reasoning in incorrect?

Brian the Snail

22nd July 2004, 08:38 AM

Yes, that's very clear Ian.

You want someone to shoot you, right?

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Yes, that's very clear Ian.

You want someone to shoot you, right? Ooh ooh! Me! Me! What are my chances?

Edited to add: Provided he doesn't keel over from a stroke brought on by too much alcohol and too little Atenolol.

Guy named John Derbyshire, whose understanding of math is a lot better than mine, and who writes a lot better than I do, wrote the following a while back. I think it's relevant to today's discussion:

Lots of people wanted to tell me that the sort of super-complex molecules found in living things could not possibly have arisen by random chance in a universe a mere 13.7 billion years old, as the probabilities concerned are so immense — 10 to the power of 40,000, according to one reader.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning. In the first place, it is based ultimately on a common statistical fallacy — one so common that it has a name: "the fallacy of numerators without denominators." (The numerator is the top number in a fraction; the denominator is the bottom one.) Consider, for example, the New York State lottery. I believe the probability of any one ticket winning the lottery is around one in twelve million. And yet, most weeks, someone wins it. How? The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here. The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week. Divide the numerator by the denominator, and you have a reasonable-sized number: 1, or 30, or 0.5, or something similar.

The probability of any particular thing happening is microscopically small. The probability that I flicked my eyes away from the screen to glance out of my study window just then, rather than a millisecond sooner or a millisecond later, is very tiny. However, in a busy universe, something must happen. In fact, untold trillions of things are happening all the time — that's the denominator. The physical universe is a far, far bigger assemblage than the population of New York State (it may in fact, for all we can prove to the contrary, be infinite!) so that extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time.

A second problem arises from the term "random chance." In fact, even the most materialist of scientists does not believe that the universe is governed by random chance. There are organizing principles everywhere: subatomic particles organize themselves into atoms and molecules, interstellar gas organizes itself into stars and planets, and so on. Science consists of the search to understand how these organizing principles do their work. Why they are present is a very interesting question, but outside the scope of science. However, no thoughtful scientist, not even the most materialist atheist, thinks that the universe is the result of purely random processes.

A third problem is the one raised by the so-called "anthropic principle." However improbable you may think it was that human intelligence arose from inanimate matter, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to discuss it! Possibly the Big Bang happened 10 to the power of 40,000 times before we showed up. Now that we have shown up, we can sit around and discuss the whole business. The other (10 to the power of 40,000, minus 1) occurrences of the universe were — as an atheist friend of mine likes to say about the Afterlife — very quiet.

richardm

22nd July 2004, 08:44 AM

I suspect that the problem is that some people are answering the question "What is the probability that I was born", rather than "What was the probability that I would be born".

It is, as you suggest, Ian, as though somebody won the lottery and asked "What were the chances of that?!", to be told "Guaranteed". In retrospect, that is the correct answer for now, but it isn't really in the spirit of what was being asked.

Hellbound

22nd July 2004, 08:47 AM

Ian,

I would suggest you learn what probability is first, then worry about this "argument" of yours.

Your example is highly flawed. A better example would be that the kidnapper, depending on what card was drawn, is going to cut off a differnt body part. Say each suit stands for a limb, and the higher the card the more of that limb will be removed.

Obviously, no matter what card shows up, you're going to have something cut off.

Trying to say "Wow, what are the odds of me having half my left arm, my right pinky, and my right leg to the knee removed? The chance of those cards is astronomically low!! That's amazing!" This is the analogy that would be identical to the argument you're making. It's a non-argument. It shows nothing wrong with materialism or science, it simply shows, yet again, that you have no grasp whatsoever of probability. But you refuse to let ignorance stop you from proclaiming yourself an expert.

You have a highly over-inflated opinion of yourself; your arguments are self-contradictory, you have little understanding of the points you bring up and less understanding of those positions you argue against, and, in a nutshell, are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Not that you'll read this, having me on ignore because you're afraid of the big bad spider, but oh well.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman
What's the problem?

If you have a couple trying to procreate, the probability that they'll produce a baby is pretty good. The probability that they'll produce a specific baby out of all the possible babies that they could create is tiny.

If you weren't here asking the question, a different you would (or could) be. No problem.

David

Not a different me. I wouldn't be here. The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 09:04 AM

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But the chance is not zero. Therefore materialism is not refuted. Right?

It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen.

I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage. I have a lot of posts to catch up on in this thread.

Thunderchief

22nd July 2004, 09:06 AM

Hi Ian

Well I was impressed with how entertaining your analogy was, but not with what it attempted to demonstrate.

Allow me this analogy:

I have a box full of two pence coins; there are about 1000 coins in the box.

If I now throw the box of coins in the air and let them fall on the floor.

Now look at the pattern produced, would you say that this pattern was an amazing result? No of course not, some pattern had to be produced, it just happened to be this on from the millions that could have been.

The same with your life, if you had been predicted before hand then the result would have been stunning, but as you wasn't, than it's no problem.

I hope this helps.

Simon.

Hellbound

22nd July 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage.

You did that with your opening post. A review of any introductory work on probability would have shown you this.

Of course, you're a supergenius and legend in your own mind, so you don't need to actually learn about a subject to know everything there is to know about it.

Brian the Snail

22nd July 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not a different me. I wouldn't be here. The point here is that the chance of me being alive is as near as damn it, zero. Yet I am alive.

Therefore materialism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

The number of positions and momenta available to a particular oxygen atom in a room is extremely large. This means that, at any given time, the probabilty that this atom will have a particular position and momentum is as near as damn it, zero. Yet, this particular atom does have this position and momentum.

Therefore atomism is refuted. I do not have this problem because I believe in fairies.

Lothian

22nd July 2004, 09:34 AM

Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

Benguin

22nd July 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

Much as they are incredibly lucky, Lottery players (winning or otherwise) are the last people I would seek statistical advice from !

;)

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by richardm
But... there are billions of combinations of genes that your parents could have produced that did, in fact turn out not to exist at this moment. Your particular combination just happens to have survived.

In a way, you're looking at the problem in the wrong way - you're saying "I'm here - it's almost impossible odds", which is true. But if that combination hadn't occurred, you simply wouldn't be here to discuss it, just like the billions of other combinations that aren't here. It's just a happy fluke, is all. You're here, so you can muse on the amazingness of it. But you just as easily might not be.

See my analogy above which demonstrates the ludicrous nature of this point.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I know I'm probably wasting my time telling you this but I'm bored so I don't mind wasting time. Ian's intent is to make you mad. There really is nothing more to it. He understands the flaws in his argument.

There are no flaws in my argument. I certainly understand what people think are the flaws. I'd have to be pretty thick not to. It just amazes me that people just keep continually reiterating the same point.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Therefore materialism is refuted.
Donc, Dieu existe.
I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation. Now, hold on just a second. You believe the chances of your being born were so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero, but you do believe it's gonna happen again?

Me confused... :confused:

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 10:00 AM

Ah! An interesting post at last! :D

Originally posted by Robin
[This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW!! :eek: Elsewhere I have argued exactly the same thing. I think it was in a newsgroup. I was arguing that probability was empirical. In particular I was talking about that in some logical possible Universe it might very well be the case that a tossed coin might land on heads 75% of the time.

Everybody disagreed with me on there as well. Nice to see someone actually agree with me! Moreover, a person one could scarcely accuse of never studying statistics (unlike me).

(my italics)

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

Doesn't follow in this instance. There is another premise that can be challenged; namely the thesis that we came into being sometime between conception and birth.

Also it is clear that in this Universe, that all other things being equal, there will be an equal probability for each outcome. In other words there is no more reason why I should have been born than for the other googolplex of other selves that could have been born.

So I think that the original question is based on a misunderstanding of probability but it also misunderstanding of materialism.

I'm afraid not.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is close enough to zero so that effectively it couldn't happen.

Incredible. You actually think that 0.000000001 = 0.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't want to get into any silly arguments with you at this stage. I have a lot of posts to catch up on in this thread.

That's quite alright. Someone who believes this clearly has no connection with the real world.

22nd July 2004, 10:08 AM

Ian, set aside your ego for one second. The reason we are all reiterating the same point is, that point utterly refutes your concept. The fact that ANY probability exists shows that it can exist; therefore, that it DOES exist is perfectly logical. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean that it's impossible. THIS is the flaw in your reasoning, and so many of us are illustrating this fundamental flaw because YOUR REASONING IS DEAD WRONG.

That's it. Nothing malicious, nothing vile, nothing fallacious. You are equating improbable with impossible, and saying that it's AMAZING that improbable things happen at all. Yet, the fact is, improbable is merely a machination of the human mind, and if it can happen, it probably will happen.

There is a probability that was calculated some time ago, by some esteemed professors of statistics at Yale (I've not the hard data, forgive any errors I make), that there is a one in 18-trillion chance that a child will be born with the necessary genetic structure to resist the various influences that we call 'aging'. Unfortunately, their base premise was flawed (they assumed there was a genetic code directly responsible for deterioration), but the idea has some merit: we are certain of SOME of what causes aging, and a very rare number of people resist one or two aspects - some are unaffected by ionic influence, others resist bacterial infection, etc. Therefore, there is a probability that eventually, if enough people are born under the right circumstances, someone will one day be born immortal. It is even possible this has already happened, but the person died due to influences not related to aging, i.e. violent death, starvation, etc. That we have never observed such a person does not mean that such a person is impossible; yet if such a person were to appear, we would undoubtably (myself included) declare it 'supernatural', 'amazing' and 'impossible'. Years later, however, it'd be considered a highly improbably possibility, and eventually, no one would think twice about it.

If probability rules the universe, we can expect that the most probable events would happen most often, and the least probable less often, which is, of course, what we have already observed. If, however, the reverse would be true, if, say the universe was deliberately designed, we would observe numerous improbable events happening everywhere, i.e. life on numerous worlds, intelligent radio signals from all over, and 'anomalies' would be common phenomenae. Since this isn't so, then we know probability plays a major role in the Universe.

Please, open your mind to the probability that you can be wrong - because it's happened yet again. I really, honestly, am not trying to be cruel or argumentive; I am trying to get you to see you've made an all-too-common mistake.

As to your example, if that did, in fact, happen, it would be an amazing demonstration of improbability manifesting, but that's all it would be.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes.

toddjh

22nd July 2004, 10:15 AM

If you need more proof of how even fantastically improbable events can occur, go to a gaming store and buy a hundred ten-sided dice (total cost, maybe $20). Go home and throw them all in the air. Record what number came up on each die. Congratulations, you've just made an event with a probability of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 01 occur. Easy, wasn't it? :)

Jeremy

drkitten

22nd July 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

[snip]

This is basically the discussion I've been having with you lot. Does the analogy make it clear why your reasoning in incorrect?

No, but it does provide a good discussion point for why your reasoning is incorrect. You're conflating the notions of prior and posterior probabilities. The two cases that you describe are not analogous, because your lunatic has prespecified an event with an extremely small prior probability, while your apparently miraculous existence is miraculous only in light of the posterior probability that the person who exists is you.

Let's examine this nutcase a little bit further; suppose that, unknown to you, he has 51 other people in identical rooms hooked up to the same card-dealing machine. So if any card other than the Ace of Hearts is drawn, you will be killed.... but at the same time, if any card other than the Six of Clubs is drawn, Sharon (in the room next door) will be killed, and if any card other than the Queen of Diamonds is drawn, etc. You will justifiably be surprised if you survive the first card. The lunatic will not, because he expected fifty-one of the fifty-two experimental subjects to die.

For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising? Not to him. He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten.

(dialogue modified slightly)
II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that someone would still be alive. I'm just disappointed it was you. I was hoping for a cute redhead who could scream in terror in an appropriately dramatic way.

Similarly, it would truly be extraordinary if the next fifteen numbers on a roulette wheel would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. But the reason for that is that's a recognizable sequence, of which there are relatively few (and hence a lower prior probability.) If the next fifteen numbers were 18, 3, 6, 7, 21, 0, 5, 13, 24, 30, 1, 3, 23, 29, 34, that wouldn't be regarded as unusual at all, despite the fact that it's exactly as improbable as the ascending sequence. We recognize that if you spin a roulette wheel fifteen times, there will be some sequence that comes out of it, even though the probability of any given sequence is 1 in 38^15 (which is substantially lower than the odds of dealing ten straight aces of hearts). If, however, I made a prior specification of exactly that sequence.... and hit it, now that would be one for the JREF prize.

Basically, you're confusing two different notions of probability. Badly. It's not surprising you get confused conclusions.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising? Not to him. He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten. Saw thought experiment in this vein once. Toss a billion pennies into the air (a thousand million to y'all on the east side of the Atlantic - why is that?). When they all land, scoop up only the ones that land heads up and discard the rest (in your thought experiment, you're fabulously wealthy and can afford to do this). Throw the remaining coins in the air again, scoop up the ones that land heads and discard the rest. Do this 30 times. By now you're down to one or two pennies that have landed heads up thirty straight times.

Is it improbable that this should happen? Of course not.

But what are the chances that any one penny in particular should be the anointed one? Practically zero - one in a billion.

drkitten

22nd July 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Saw thought experiment in this vein once. Toss a billion pennies into the air (a thousand million to y'all on the east side of the Atlantic - why is that?). When they all land, scoop up only the ones that land heads up and discard the rest (in your thought experiment, you're fabulously wealthy and can afford to do this).

I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies?

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 11:21 AM

OK, a lot of posts to go through. You're all making the same wholly irrellevant point still. If you're all still unable to understand after my analogy, I really don't know what else to say. I just throw up my arms in despair. And Dr Kitten, the situation regarding the Loony is exactly the same. Hopefully I'll get round to responding to your post tonight.

BTW Huntsman. I trust you're not addressing me with your posts?? You know I've got you on ignore because of that spider.

toddjh

22nd July 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies?

What's wrong with being both fabulously wealthy and fabulously strong? Add fabulously good-looking, and you should be all set!

Jeremy

scribble

22nd July 2004, 11:33 AM

PEople, we've been through this crap with Ian before.

Remember, he's the one who argued .999 repeating does not equal 1. He's the one who argued that he could take an "arbitrarily long" but *NOT INFINITE IN LENGTH* string and find *ANY* substring in it.

He's the one who refuses to believe those are incorrect statements despite carrying on umpteen-page-long threads.

No, folks, I gave the only right answer at the beginning of this page. Explaining it to dunderhead won't help any. I was tempted to go into detail about why his question is both stupid and misguided, but he won't hear it -- he'll just make more ignorant claims and accuse us of being idiots and having lost an argument.

scribble

22nd July 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
But what are the chances that any one penny in particular should be the anointed one? Practically zero - one in a billion. [/B]

Heeey, that's a beautiful analogy.

Judging from the thread on finding random strings, though, I can almost promise you Ian won't get it.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by drkitten
I'm also apparently fabulously strong as well. Am I wealthy enough to hire someone to do the actual tossing of the pennies? Hey, it's your thought experiment. :D

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by scribble
PEople, we've been through this crap with Ian before. (...snip...)
Explaining it to dunderhead won't help any. I was tempted to go into detail about why his question is both stupid and misguided, but he won't hear it -- he'll just make more ignorant claims and accuse us of being idiots and having lost an argument. So why do y'all keep coming back? This is page three of this thread. Seems to me Ian has formidable trolling skills.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
[B]Ooh ooh! Me! Me! What are my chances?

Edited to add: Provided he doesn't keel over from a stroke brought on by too much alcohol and too little Atenolol.

Guy named John Derbyshire, whose understanding of math is a lot better than mine, and who writes a lot better than I do, wrote the following a while back. I think it's relevant to today's discussion:
[i]
Lots of people wanted to tell me that the sort of super-complex molecules found in living things could not possibly have arisen by random chance in a universe a mere 13.7 billion years old, as the probabilities concerned are so immense — 10 to the power of 40,000, according to one reader.

They're essentially right, although I would not say "could not possibly".

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning. In the first place, it is based ultimately on a common statistical fallacy — one so common that it has a name: "the fallacy of numerators without denominators." (The numerator is the top number in a fraction; the denominator is the bottom one.) Consider, for example, the New York State lottery. I believe the probability of any one ticket winning the lottery is around one in twelve million. And yet, most weeks, someone wins it. How? The answer, of course, is that twelve million is merely the numerator here.

Not according to how he just defined "numerator" it isn't. :rolleyes:

Anyway, as I have very patiently explained, all this is wholly irrelevant. Read my analogy above.

The denominator is the several million people who buy lottery tickets every week. Divide the numerator by the denominator, and you have a reasonable-sized number: 1, or 30, or 0.5, or something similar.

The probability of any particular thing happening is microscopically small. The probability that I flicked my eyes away from the screen to glance out of my study window just then, rather than a millisecond sooner or a millisecond later, is very tiny. However, in a busy universe, something must happen. In fact, untold trillions of things are happening all the time — that's the denominator. The physical universe is a far, far bigger assemblage than the population of New York State (it may in fact, for all we can prove to the contrary, be infinite!) so that extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time.

Yes yes, and all this is wholly irrelevant both to my argument and to the point about super complex molecules or whatever.

A second problem arises from the term "random chance." In fact, even the most materialist of scientists does not believe that the universe is governed by random chance.

That's right, it is governed by physical laws. What the Content removed for violation of Rule 8 has this got to do with anything??

There are organizing principles everywhere: subatomic particles organize themselves into atoms and molecules, interstellar gas organizes itself into stars and planets, and so on.

And who is the organizer? Or does the organizing just happen by chance? If the latter this contradicts your contention that the Universe is governed by "random chance" (btw what would be non-random chance?)

Science consists of the search to understand how these organizing principles do their work. Why they are present is a very interesting question, but outside the scope of science. However, no thoughtful scientist, not even the most materialist atheist, thinks that the universe is the result of purely random processes.

A third problem is the one raised by the so-called "anthropic principle." However improbable you may think it was that human intelligence arose from inanimate matter, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to discuss it!

Read my analogy to understand why this doesn't make it any the less implausible. The anthropic principle doesn't work.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by richardm
[B]I suspect that the problem is that some people are answering the question "What is the probability that I was born", rather than "What was the probability that I would be born".

The first question makes no sense. It's not even a question; it's just nonsense.

It is, as you suggest, Ian, as though somebody won the lottery and asked "What were the chances of that?!", to be told "Guaranteed". In retrospect, that is the correct answer for now, but it isn't really in the spirit of what was being asked.

It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

Let's say I won the UK lottery every single week since it was first started in 1994. It is certain I would have won every single time?

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchief
Hi Ian

Well I was impressed with how entertaining your analogy was, but not with what it attempted to demonstrate.

Allow me this analogy:

I have a box full of two pence coins; there are about 1000 coins in the box.

If I now throw the box of coins in the air and let them fall on the floor.

Now look at the pattern produced, would you say that this pattern was an amazing result? No of course not, some pattern had to be produced, it just happened to be this on from the millions that could have been.

The same with your life, if you had been predicted before hand then the result would have been stunning, but as you wasn't, than it's no problem.

I hope this helps.

Simon.

No, you fail to understand. From your perspective an individual saying how astounding he is that he is alive will not impress. Your patterned coin example applies here. It is different for you to ask yourself how likely it is that you should find yourself existing. Here a particular specified pattern of coins applies.

My analogy was of course intentionally amusing.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's say I won the UK lottery every single week since it was first started in 1994. It is certain I would have won every single time? I'm assuming you meant to write "Is it certain I would have won every single time?"

It is now, now that it's happened. You do ask "IS it certain" (at least the way I rephrased what I thought was your intent), not "WAS it certain..."

I suppose you could go back to the moment of the Big Bang and argue that everything that has ever happened, anywhere, at any time, is the result of a chain of events, that nothing happens without there having been a prior cause/causes, and that whatever happens is in itself a cause (or at least a partial cause) of future events. As such, one could argue that your being born was not just probable, but certain.

Was it predictable? Aye, now there's the rub.

BTW, you never did explain why you believe the chances of your birth were so improbable as to be effectively, zero, yet you believe you'll be reincarnated.

Also, BTW, if you won the lottery every week, I'd say it was almost certainly rigged.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Lothian
Ian,

I will add to the analogies.

The national lottery has been running for some time now. When the 100’th jackpot winner was drawn there was a party for all 100 winners. Someone stood up and said “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners.” Every one agreed that all in all the odds were hugely astronomical, practically nil.

However one thing is 100% certain. There was going to be a party for the first 100 winners. While we didn’t know who was going to be invited there were going to be 100 guests.

We also know for certain that someone would at the party stand up and say “the chances of winning the lottery are 13 million to one what are the chances that us 100 should be the first 100 winners”;)

And this would only apply to my situation if we were talking about if I could have found myself existing in any number of other bodies should my parents not have met etc. Then it would be silly to say, isn't it astounding I am inhabiting this particular body!!?? :eek: LOL

As it is it is simply a false analogy.

I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG

BTW, you never did explain why you believe the chances of your birth were so improbable as to be effectively, zero, yet you believe you'll be reincarnated.

[/B]

I haven't got round to that post yet. Everyone's arguing against me, and no-one is on my side (as usual). Therefore it takes longer for me to respond.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And who is the organizer? Or does the organizing just happen by chance? If the latter this contradicts your contention that the Universe is governed by "random chance" (btw what would be non-random chance?)When did I ever say that? I don't believe there even is such a thing as randomness. And Derbyshire (the guy I was quoting) doesn't either. I think you might have misread.

Good linguistic point about "random chance" - it's a redundant phrase, like "foreign imports."

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not have this problem because I believe in reincarnation.

BPSCG
Now, hold on just a second. You believe the chances of your being born were so infinitesimally small as to be effectively zero, but you do believe it's gonna happen again?

Me confused... :confused:

The inherent unlikelihood of ever being born only applies when one supposes that we are a combination of our genetic inheritance and environmental experiences. Obviously I find such a supposition to be absurd. We are selves or souls which exist before we are born. It is not at all unlikely that we should be born in that scenario.

SGT

22nd July 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Robin
This question had me running for the text book. According to "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe, Freeman,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of probability is empirical. That is, it is based on observation rather than theorizing. Probability describes what happens in very many trials, and we must actually observe many trials to pin down a probability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like all maths probability is an idealisation of the real world. If the observation does not match the mathematical model then the model is wrong.

Allow me to disagree with your textbook. Probability is a purely mathematical concept. By definition, Probability is a real number between zero and one.. Based on this definition and some postulates, a whole theory is developed that has no relationship to the real world.
What is empiric is the use of the results of probability theory to describe events in the real world.
If the observation does not match the mathematical model then you are using the wrong model. The model is not wrong, it is only being misused.

I will not answer to Ian because it is a lost cause. I can add nothing to the examples other people used. They are all clear and well based, but I don't think Ian is able to understand them.

BPSCG

22nd July 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The inherent unlikelihood of ever being born only applies when one supposes that we are a combination of our genetic inheritance and environmental experiences. Obviously I find such a supposition to be absurd. We are selves or souls which exist before we are born. It is not at all unlikely that we should be born in that scenario. Okay, well now we're in an area where you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. They may be true or they may be false, but there's no way to prove or disprove them. So as this has turned into a fruitless discussion, I guess here's where I bow out, and despite your having cursed me and denounced me as a moron, individually and en masse, I hope everything's going well with your blood pressure.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by SGT

I will not answer to Ian because it is a lost cause. I can add nothing to the examples other people used. They are all clear and well based, but I don't think Ian is able to understand them. [/B]

Yup, I'm a lost cause to clearly fallacious arguments.

It seems very clear that I understand other people, and indeed I did before starting the thread; but people don't understand what I'm getting at.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, well now we're in an area where you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. They may be true or they may be false, but there's no way to prove or disprove them. So as this has turned into a fruitless discussion, I guess here's where I bow out, and despite your having cursed me and denounced me as a moron, individually and en masse, I hope everything's going well with your blood pressure.

We're not talking about my beliefs (for which there is a good deal of evidence btw). We are discussing the consequences of supposing that we are nothing but our genetic and environmental makeup.

22nd July 2004, 01:24 PM

So why don't you explain our 'fallacy', clearly and without resorting to analogy? Certainly, I will concede a 'fallacy' if you can demonstrate one. However, I don't see what's wrong with us being the result of genetics and environment. Certainly, no person has ever been born lacking these two credentials; people don't spontaneously form in the vacuum of space, and I'm fairly certain everyone had parents of some form.

If, however, you are UNABLE (rather than UNWILLING) to explain the 'fallacy', you might concede that the fallacy is your own?

Calculating the 'chances' that you would be born rather than some other person would require knowing the exact genetic makeup of your parents (only), the environment in which they conceived and lived during your gestation and birth, and certain psychological factors of those around your parents during this process. Altogether, we would be unable to come up with the proper probability, but such probability exists, nonetheless. That you were born is, by no means, a miracle or a holy event; simply the expected manifestation of probability - as are all events in the universe.

By which, I assert that anyone aware of the nature of probability should never be surprised that something happens, since, sooner or later, it had to happen.

Vitnir

22nd July 2004, 03:06 PM

Maybe the probability that Ian ever will make his claims about idealism understandable to mere mortals is reaching zero?
I wonder what he is doing here anyway, are there more PhD-philosophers here than on a dedicated philosophy forum or has he been chased away from them?
For some reason I come to think of Bishop Berkeley who got fed up with arguing against idealism and kicked a large stone and said "I refute it thus"

scribble

22nd July 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by BPSCG
(...snip...)
[B]So why do y'all keep coming back? This is page three of this thread. Seems to me Ian has formidable trolling skills.

I've had fun in the past telling him how wrong he is. It's nice to have someone around who is an easy target, so I don't have to think much.

I'm only half-joking.

Taffer

22nd July 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...(for which there is a good deal of evidence btw)...

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I'm wasting my time here. Everyone is just making the same error.

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's nonsensical to say it was certain or guaranteed. The stupidity of people on here is utterly astounding.

Care to enlighten us, oh Massiah?

Ad infinitum.

Interesting Ian

22nd July 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by drkitten
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let me try to illustrate the difficulty by the use of an analogy.

Suppose I get kidnapped by a loony. He has 10 packs of cards. He allows me to examine them so I can check they are fair. Then, being a loony, he shuts me in a room with a card-shuffling machine. The machine shuffles all ten packs of cards so that the cards contained therein are randomly distributed. The loony says the machine will randomly select a card from each deck consecutively. If at any stage the card selected is not the Ace of Hearts the machine will instantaneously set off an explosion which will immediately kill me. In effect I would never know that the card selected was not the Ace of Hearts. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am in a position of certainty regarding the fact that everything is as it seems ie the decks of cards are fair, the machine does genuinely randomly select a card from each deck, etc. Obviously it is extraordinary unlikely that I will survive this.

[snip]

This is basically the discussion I've been having with you lot. Does the analogy make it clear why your reasoning in incorrect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, but it does provide a good discussion point for why your reasoning is incorrect.

Well that's not a Content removed for violation of Rule 8 promising start now is it. OK, you don't understand either :rolleyes:

You're conflating the notions of prior and posterior probabilities. The two cases that you describe are not analogous, because your lunatic has prespecified an event with an extremely small prior probability, while your apparently miraculous existence is miraculous only in light of the posterior probability that the person who exists is you.

This fails to make it non-analogous. They are both exactly the same. In both cases we are asked to believe that the fact of my existence is a certainty.

Let's examine this nutcase a little bit further; suppose that, unknown to you, he has 51 other people in identical rooms hooked up to the same card-dealing machine. So if any card other than the Ace of Hearts is drawn, you will be killed.... but at the same time, if any card other than the Six of Clubs is drawn, Sharon (in the room next door) will be killed, and if any card other than the Queen of Diamonds is drawn, etc. You will justifiably be surprised if you survive the first card. The lunatic will not, because he expected fifty-one of the fifty-two experimental subjects to die.

He will expect one of us still to be alive on average. It might be me, or any of the others.

For the second card, let's take you and fifty-one other survivors of a one-card experiment (which of course means he started out with about 2500 subjects) and again you survive. Surprising?

Well, slightly surprising to me. 1 chance in 2500 can happen though.

Not to him.

True enough. I agree. Again, he would expect one of us on average to survive. But the person who survives might find it just slightly surprising.

He expected one of the subjects to survive a second card. Carry this out far enough (you specified ten cards), which would require 52^10 original participants, and he will not be surprised that one person survived all ten.

Again I'm in agreement. But for the individual concerned it will be extraordinarily surprising. So in the particular scenario where he kidnaps 10^52 people it will not be surprising to the loony/kidnapper.

This, however, does not have any implications for my argument whatsoever. It doesn't alter the fact that *I* should find it absolutely extraordinary that it is me that has survived. Moreover, although my kidnapper ought not to be surprised (in your massive kidnapping scenario), he is in no position to say that I ought not to interpret my survival as absolutely extraordinary. You see??

At least you're making a stab at an intelligent response though which I appreciate. Unfortunately it still fails.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(dialogue modified slightly)
II: WOW!! That is absolutely extraordinary!!

Loony: What was?

II: Well, the fact I'm still alive you idiot!

Loony: Why shouldn't you be?

II: Because the chance of me still being alive is an extraordinary low one.

Loony: No, it is certain that someone would still be alive. I'm just disappointed it was you. I was hoping for a cute redhead who could scream in terror in an appropriately dramatic way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I say, it is true that he ought not to be surprised. But from my perspective it is absolutely extraordinary.

And this is what we're talking about. It is vanishingly unlikely that I was born. Not so of course from your perspective because you do not experience being me. After all, if I hadn't of been born, another person could say the very same as me. And you're not in a position to distinguish me saying it, from him saying it, or anyone else saying it. You, like me, have to consider your own case. In other words it's vanishingly unlikely that you should ever be born. But only you can know this. I can't know it.

Don't know if I expressed myself adequately in that last paragraph :(

Your post is vastly better than anyone elses though, so I now regret my rudeness at the beginning. I hadn't read all of your argument.