What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeably.
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities.
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
[final paragraph]
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category.
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.
Ok, so you don’t understand limit theory, that might be a good place for you to start.
The fact that you quoted the “why” and still ask this is sad, I don’t know how to spell it out more than it already has been. Try rereading that part.