OT: An Existential Dilemma

[Tris]

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

If you are going to be like that about it then:

Given a set of starting conditions any given system will develop in accordance with the laws of physics.

If you know the starting conditions you can predict the events arising therefrom, and hence calculate a new set of "starting conditions" for the system at time X, where X is arbitraraly large.

(I can't spell that arbi word, it appears)

Given that, due to CPT symmetry (ok, actually just the T part will do) X can be negative as well as positive, and indeed can be arbitar...damn can be as negative as you want it to be, if you know the starting conditions then talking about probability at all is meaningless. Everything either won't/hasn't happen(ed) or will/has happen(ed).

Of course, if you mean "given the limits of human knowledge and understanding there is a 60% chance that this will happen", that makes more sense, but then "given the limits of human knowledge and understanding there is a 60% chance god exists" is also sensible.

The upshot of this, for those who weren't following carefully, is you should place your palm on the screen, take out your credit cards, and send me your money.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Tris:
If you know the starting conditions you can predict the events arising therefrom, and hence calculate a new set of "starting conditions" for the system at time X, where X is arbitraraly large.
...
Of course, if you mean "given the limits of human knowledge and understanding there is a 60% chance that this will happen", that makes more sense, but then "given the limits of human knowledge and understanding there is a 60% chance god exists" is also sensible.

You could be right - I certainly don't want to portray myself as an expert in this matter. However:

The first part of your post assumes that we have a determined, or "clockwork", universe in which all events, past and future, are set in stone. There is no agreement that this is in fact the case.

Even if it is, there are certain events (like the result of a dieroll) which are the net result of many small influences. It is these "statistical" results that are described by the theory of probability. When viewed in this light, it doesn't matter whether the result is determined or not.

Existential questions, as far as I can see, are not statistical in nature, and so cannot be addressed with the theory of probability.

[Tris]

I'm no expert either, I just enjoy sounding like one :-)

Ok, the thing about the die roll and probability is that we don't know what effect the small influences will have. If we knew exactly how the die was rolled, a decent computer could calculate what it would land on every time. Probability says "When you roll an unbiased D6, you have a 16% chance of getting each result" Actually, if you roll it exactly the same way, you will get exactly the same result, it's just you can't determine the starting conditions perfectly, so it seems probabalistic, rather than determanistic.

As far as existential questions go, I think perhaps you can use probability. Here goes:

"I am the only person other than you on this forum"

> I am impersonating everyone else.
> All other posters have distinct personalities
> To create such a number of posters with distinct personalities accurately, I would have to be very clever. In fact I would need to be X clever.
> The average IQ is 100. IQ is a bell curve with set varience.
> Using this curve, and the worlds total population we can see that there are likely to be 5 people in the world clever enough
> The chance of one of these people spending all their time posting on a dominions 2 forum is 0.001%, given that there are Z other forums, and at least 2 of those people are enlightened Zen Buddists who live solitary lives of contemplation.
>The chance of me being the only other person on this forum other than you is 0.001%, from your point of view.

Of course, from mine it is different, as I have different information

Tris (who has exactly 0 idea why he bothered writing that...)

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Tris:
As far as existential questions go, I think perhaps you can use probability. Here goes:

Heck, there's no way I'm arguing with this.
You win

[Tris]

If anyone wants to buy my new Book, "Winning by making stuff up (how long words can make YOU seem intelligent)" please contact me on
0800 SUCKERS

[Maltrease]

I called that number they didn't know any Tris or anything about your book.

I think you made that up.

However I did win a free vacation, all I had to do was send them $400 cash as a deposit. Cool deal!

[guybrush threepwood]

Originally posted by Tris:
Ok, the thing about the die roll and probability is that we don't know what effect the small influences will have. If we knew exactly how the die was rolled, a decent computer could calculate what it would land on every time. Probability says "When you roll an unbiased D6, you have a 16% chance of getting each result" Actually, if you roll it exactly the same way, you will get exactly the same result, it's just you can't determine the starting conditions perfectly, so it seems probabalistic, rather than determanistic.

Actually, taken to the limit this deterministic picture of the rolling dice is not really true either due to the ways of quantum mechanics. Of course, quantum mechanics and existentialistic discussions is a whole other can of worms...