The Wonder of our Life

Pippen

Let's start with a simple example to be on the same page: We have a bowl with 1.000 numbered balls. I pick #22. The probability for this to happen was 1/1.000, the probability for something else to happen was 999/1.000. So my pick was extremely lucky because it should have been something else than #22. This interpretation of probability calculus is the standard-one in my book. Right?

Now let's look at our life. I don't want to get into the details of the probability of our existence as single persons, check out some YT videos with staggering small probabilities, let's call those 0.000...1. But that means by the same token like above that the probability for our non-existence was 0.999...9, almost 1, and so our very life is extremely!!! lucky. Right?

I think both answers have to be: yes.

But now I ask myself: could one actually dismiss our existence due to randomness as too improbable with statistical inference? I mean we have billions of examples of extremely improbable things to happen - all our existences. That's a pretty mighty sample. Simplified spoken: if very improbable things happen over and over again the probability of these things caused by randomness tends to zero, which could be some statistical proof for us to exist not random, i.e. "created".

Eee

Simplified spoken: if very improbable things happen over and over again the probability of these things caused by randomness tends to zero, which could be some statistical proof for us to exist not random, i.e. "created". — Pippen

I don't think it's good argument for creationism, for all kinds of reasons. But let's assume that it is. What kind of creator do you have in mind? Is it one from the holy books that offers an afterlife to believers? How do you get from no-randomness to just the kind of god you'd prefer? Probably the one you happened to be exposed to as a child?

That's why these arguments always look suspicious. Isn't it still legal to be religious? But those with that craving often feel the need to justify it with questionable logic. I get it. The night is dark and full of terrors. If this weren't a philosophy forum, I wouldn't bother you with my criticisms. But it is a forum, so presumably you want some feedback and can take it.

Pippen

@EEE: I don't care about the creator at all. My argument only is that because of statistical reasons it is very probable that we were created non-random, not more, not less, no further conclusions. And I ask if this argument is sound or not.

Pantagruel

If you pick a ball, you will get some result, and one result is as likely as any other. On the other hand, if you picked 3 in a row and got 22, 23, 24, that might be considered improbable.

Russell says that, if a theory predicts something very improbable, and the improbable thing is found to be true, the theory is proportionately validated. So if life is improbable, then it validates some equally improbable theory of life.....

Edit: if you look at experiments in creating artificial cells you can see that extremely improbable events occur; but these events fall within the explanatory reach of non-linear equations. Maybe improbability just represents....limited knowledge?

christian2017

↪Pippen

I do believe we were created but it should be noted if you roll a million sided die one million times trying to roll a 566 you will almost definitely roll a 566. This was pointed out in the book "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings.

Pippen

I do believe we were created but it should be noted if you roll a million sided die one million times trying to roll a 566 you will almost definitely roll a 566. This was pointed out in the book "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. — christian2017

But we assume there's only one world, therefore just one roll of your million-sided die which we assume as random. And if you roll there a 566, what would be the rational conclusion of a mathematician using probability theory & statistics?

ZhouBoTong

We have a bowl with 1.000 numbered balls. I pick #22. — Pippen

So my pick was extremely lucky because it should have been something else than #22. — Pippen

Do we actually KNOW that it was possible to pick any other number other than 22 on that particular attempt? If the number picked was 100% due to determinism, then it was the only possibility that could occur at that moment.

There is only one reality (that we know of)...what are the odds that that reality occurred? 100%? 1%? How would we begin to assign a probability...Well how many non-realities are there? None, by definition. So it sounds like we have 1 reality occurring out of 1 possibility, so 100%?

Simplified spoken: if very improbable things happen over and over again the probability of these things caused by randomness tends to zero, which could be some statistical proof for us to exist not random, i.e. "created". — Pippen

You would have to prove that these events were, in fact, improbable, versus being the only possibility. How would we begin to do that? I am in no way proving you wrong; just pointing out that I think we would need to be outside the system (reality) to start estimating the probability of that system just occurring vs being created.

christian2017

↪Pippen

Many statisticians would tell you that statistics is more of a tool to aid in making better decisions. Statistics is far from an exact science. I use a statistical approach to alot of issues but since i believe in scientific determinism, on many levels much of what happens to me in the future is well out of my control.

The Wonder of our Life

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions