- #1

- 12

- 0

- Thread starter time traveller d
- Start date

- #1

- 12

- 0

- #2

- 102

- 0

- #3

- 36

- 0

"*God does not play dice.*"

- #4

- 1,056

- 0

So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion. http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

- #5

Tide

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 3,076

- 0

- #6

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

No, that's not true. billions and billions of thingsso many billions and billions of thing's had to happen just right

You can't talk about probabilities a posteriori. If I pick one number out of 10 million, the probability that I would get, say, 123730 would be 0.00000001. But it would make no sense to pick a number and then say "look, I got 123730. That couldn't have happened by chance!"

Last edited by a moderator:

- #7

- 453

- 0

The reason for that is that all the probablities are equal.

If there were 10 million red balls in a jar, and 1 blue ball (no puns please), then getting the blue ball would indeed give us cause to be suspect of the randomness.

- #8

Tide

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 3,076

- 0

That presumes that you know something about the distribution of colors in the jar - which we don't - and even then it does not diminish in any way what Halls said. It is entirely possible to be dealt a royal flush on the first draw and we cannot infer "design" on the basis of that single observation. It might be a different matter if we are repeatedly dealt the royal flush but we have only one data point and even that is somewhat dubious.DeadWolfe said:

The reason for that is that all the probablities are equal.

If there were 10 million red balls in a jar, and 1 blue ball (no puns please), then getting the blue ball would indeed give us cause to be suspect of the randomness.

- #9

- 1,275

- 81

- #10

Curious3141

Homework Helper

- 2,843

- 87

This ain't "General Math".

- #11

- 591

- 0

Of course, we're the ones colouring the balls, and we've done so after the fact. Pulling a ball out of a jar of red balls, painting the ball blue and then exclaiming "Wow, what are the chances we would pull out a blue ball?" is basically what we are doing when we label the current state of the universe as a particularly special outcome.DeadWolfe said:

The reason for that is that all the probablities are equal.

If there were 10 million red balls in a jar, and 1 blue ball (no puns please), then getting the blue ball would indeed give us cause to be suspect of the randomness.

- #12

SGT

A simple example can explain that. What is the probability of getting 100 aces in the toss of 100 dice? It is so small, that if someone started tossing the dice from the beginning of the Universe until now, one toss per second, the odds are that it would not have happened still.

But let´s change the laws. Instead of picking all the dice after each toss and tossing them again, we let all aces in place and toss only the other dice. In a few minutes we would have the 100 aces.

That is how things work in Nature. The winning combinations are kept and the loosing ones are repeated endlessly.

- #13

- 1,275

- 81

By this I mean to say that God spoke the universe into existence.benorin said:

- #14

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

So your theology is based on a pun?benorin said:By this I mean to say that God spoke the universe into existence.

- #15

- 274

- 0

Any theology is based on a pun.

- #16

- 1,275

- 81

Let me rephrase that:HallsofIvy said:So your theology is based on a pun?

By that I mean to indicate that I believe that God spoke the universe into existence.

- #17

- 12

- 0

how did the laws of physics come into being? wouldn't someone(god) have to have basicly written these laws? well anyway, what i was trying to ask is what are the odds/probability the universe just came into existence on it's own? are there any mathematicly equation's that prove the universe could not come into existance on it's own or that it can. it's just a curiosity i have.SGT said:HallsofIvypointed, things have hapenned following those laws.

A simple example can explain that. What is the probability of getting 100 aces in the toss of 100 dice? It is so small, that if someone started tossing the dice from the beginning of the Universe until now, one toss per second, the odds are that it would not have happened still.

But let´s change the laws. Instead of picking all the dice after each toss and tossing them again, we let all aces in place and toss only the other dice. In a few minutes we would have the 100 aces.

That is how things work in Nature. The winning combinations are kept and the loosing ones are repeated endlessly.

- #18

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

1) You cannot calculate odds of an event without postulating some apriori probability distribution.

2) Even if the outcome you observed aposteriori has very low probability of happening, that does NOT mean that it didn't happen randomly.

Suppose the procedure is "pick a number between 1 and 1000000 at random with every number being equally likely to be picked" (i.e. postulating the uniform distribution). The probability that the number 127312 will be picked is, of course, 1/1000000. But in fact the probability that

- #19

- 998

- 0

Richard Feynman said:You know, the mostamazingthing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357! Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!

- #20

russ_watters

Mentor

- 19,799

- 6,196

- #21

- 442

- 0

SGT said:You must understand that things don´t assemble randomly.

hmm... A chaos theorist might disagree with you. There are things that seem to assemble themselves, or maybe it's us thinking that there is some sort of structure in something that truely has none. Check out the distribution of the eigenvalues of a randomly generated hermatian matrix. How is there somewhat of a non-random nature to the distribution when it's parent matrix was generated at random? Conversely, the zeta function is clearly defined, but its non-trivial zeros are a real pickle to try to understand. Many non-linear differential equations turn out to border between periodic and chaotic.

- #22

- 240

- 0

the so called "philosophical anthropic principle"?

- #23

- 42

- 0

Biết Chết Liền!!!

- #24

SGT

That is not what I said. Random processes happen all the time and some of them present what seems to be order. But what I mean is that the energy present in the Big Bang coalesced into elementary particles and those particles assemble themselves into atoms according to the laws of physics. If the four fundamental interactions had different values, we would have different particles and atoms or none at all.Jonny_trigonometry said:hmm... A chaos theorist might disagree with you. There are things that seem to assemble themselves, or maybe it's us thinking that there is some sort of structure in something that truely has none. Check out the distribution of the eigenvalues of a randomly generated hermatian matrix. How is there somewhat of a non-random nature to the distribution when it's parent matrix was generated at random? Conversely, the zeta function is clearly defined, but its non-trivial zeros are a real pickle to try to understand. Many non-linear differential equations turn out to border between periodic and chaotic.

In the same way, the atoms assembled themselves into molecules to form rocks, bacteria and human beings according to the laws of chemistry.

Are those laws the product of chaos or of an intelligent creator? We don't know. The important is that we live in an universe where those laws are valid, so the probability that this Universe came into beeing is 1.

- #25

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

On the contrary, it IS, basically, the "anthropic principle"!Castilla said:

the so called "philosophical anthropic principle"?