24 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI already stated that they were placed there in random order. If you contend that God put them there, then there is no point discussing this further as whatever real life example I give will just result in you claiming that God did it.
no its not, your dvds have not moved, unless of course by an outside agency, Massive FAIL!
Therefore you shall be pleased to offer a real life event that has actually happened with a probability in the region of 1x10^50, if you cannot, will not, are unable to, you shall now go a step further and retract your initial assertion and convert to Christianity.
If you contend instead that I placed them is a specific (non-random) order, without my knowledge, then let me try this example:
When I was younger, I used to play snake and ladders. Two die are used. I can assure you that over all the times that I played the game, probability of the order of the exact numbers that appeared on those die was lower than 1 in 10^50. In fact, I only needed to throw the dice about 60 times to reach those odds.
24 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot quite right. It is in the creation of the sperm and the egg (Meiosis) that the randomness takes place.
When blending the information in one egg with the information of one sperm the blending is random.
When sperms or eggs are created, the parents genetic material is chosen at random from the two sets of DNA the parent got from its parents.
When the sperm and egg combine - the DNA from the sperm and the DNA from the egg all go into the resultant child. Which genes are expressed depends on factors like dominance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
So if you have a particular gene that you got from one parent, about half your sperm will have it, and the other half wont.
Men have a special chromosome set (XY) such that each sperm contains either an X or a Y. This determines the sex of the baby.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thank you for the correction. 🙂 I have to study this intresting topic further.
Not quite right. It is in the creation of the sperm and the egg (Meiosis) that the randomness takes place.
When sperms or eggs are created, the parents genetic material is chosen at random from the two sets of DNA the parent got from its parents.
When the sperm and egg combine - the DNA from the sperm and the DNA from the egg all go into the resulta ...[text shortened]... set (XY) such that each sperm contains either an X or a Y. This determines the sex of the baby.
24 Jun 10
1 edit
all of your examples rely upon an outside agency, you are in effect simply proving that life could not have arisen through blind chance. now if you had stated that your cd collection was left to its own devices and then produced a specific sequence, or that your snakes and ladders dice were left to themselves and managed to produce a specific sequence then you may have a point, as it stands, Louis Pasteur himself PROVED that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.
24 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid Pasteur prove that life didn't could have started on Earth some 4 billion of years ago? Did Pasteur know anything about the conditions at that time?
all of your examples rely upon an outside agency, you are in effect simply proving that life could not have arisen through blind chance. now if you had stated that your cd collection was left to its own devices and then produced a specific sequence, or that your snakes and ladders dice were left to themselves and managed to produce a specific sequenc ...[text shortened]... as it stands, Louis Pasteur himself PROVED that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.
Show me any reference that Pasteur showed how life once began.
Before you enter a scientific area, robbie, be sure that you understand the science behind. You just cannot simply take a sentence from somewhere, not understanding it, and throw it in as an argument that you are right.You have showed so many times that you don't know much about science, so why try to use it at all?
(Now robbie will give a new personal attack on me. Why? Because his argument ran out.)
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasTake your notebook to the pub and I'll do the same ... My first question would be how you calculate the probability of an unrepeatable event.
The pilosphical implications can be discussed over a beer or two at the local pub some night: If the sperm giving existance of Einstein would take the wrong turn somewhere, and another sperm would win the race - would the relativity theory be different of what it is now?
Thanks FFnas & twhitehead, I'm shockingly ignorant about meiosis!
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't have an intuitive metaphor to describe it... But there aren't many practical differences.
I've heard Bayesians proclaim the superiority of their approach uncomprehendingly. Could you provide a handy analogy to make your point clear?
A (rough) frequentist definition of probability is defined as a limit notion. The probability is then the frequency of occurrences of an event as the number of trials goes to infinity (number of occurences/number of trials). So a Frequentist would have trouble attaching a probability to an unrepeatable event.
For a Bayesian a probability is a measure of how much information you have about an event. You start with a prior probability and then use information to update it according to the Bayes rule. It's a bit tricky. For example, you were rolling a dice and had a prior that you get 1 half of the time. With every given roll, you can update the prior. If the dice is a perfect dice, then the Bayes rule will imply your posterior will eventually converge to 1/6 as you keep throwing dice. BUT note that the probability is changing with every new piece of information. Regarding an unrepeatable event a Bayesian would have no conceptual problem with using information about theoretically similar events to construct a (prior) probability to that event.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by PalynkaCould you apply that to the example under discussion (the probability of robbie carrobie)?
Regarding an unrepeatable event a Bayesian would have no conceptual problem with using information about theoretically similar events to construct a (prior) probability to that event.