Heh, you can try petty name calling instead of trying to defend your mistakes all you like, but no amount of pathetic jabs are going to make me forget how to use infinities properly.
For example if you increased total mass and number of equivalent star systems in the universe 1000x, the chance of earth-like life randomly emerging would not change if it was "infinitely improbable", because 1000x infinity is still just infinity. But that's stupid, the chance obviously goes up as the number of planets capable of generating earth-like life goes up, because it's not infinitely improbable, just very improbable.
one mane winning three consecutive lotteries is no weirder than one man winning a single
Are you seriously going to pretend you don't remember admitting you set up that arbitrary hypothetical so that both outcomes are equally statistically likely? Stripping out the numbers and going "HurR DuRr, Me SpEll MaN WroNg" isn't going to make that look any less desperate son.
Once again you demonstrate you don’t understand limits. There’s no point wasting my time trying to teach you math which is clearly years beyond your ken. Suffice it to say the probability we are discussing approaches 1/∞ as we include the 27 independent fundemental variables of the Standard Model. Can you name any of these variables?
both outcomes are equally statistically likely?
So you still don’t have even the slightest idea how humans and the lottery work. Stunning. Give this a read and let me know if it clicks for you or if you need more help:
No offense, but did you take any math classes in college? You keep talking about mathematical proof that you've offered, but all you've given are ass-pulled "probabilities".
And 1 / (any number of big, probably made up numbers) is not zero, it's just a very small number. But when we're talking about astronomical scales, we're talking about very large numbers. Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff. And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.
No offense, but did you take any math classes in college?
Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?
Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff.
You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.
And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.
Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:
[The Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
Did you get on the STEM course on a dodgeball scholarship or something? Because those math credits seem to have been utterly wasted, but you're an absolute pro at dodging questions.
Oh look we've hit the "made up pseudoscience and flimsy claims of priestly expertise" section.
No it doesn't suffice to just arbitrarily say that the probability we're discussing approaches 1/∞, because that's wrong and you're a fucking quack. Go ahead and prove it, literally prove it. It doesn't matter if you think I will understand it or not, if you actually understand it and are certain it's true then you'll already have the proof ready to go so you can go on record as "not full of shit".
both outcomes are equally statistically likely
Haha, I didn't expect the answer to "are you seriously going to pretend that didn't happen?" to be "unironically yes, now let's completely change the hypothetical. Checkmate"
Heh, you can try petty name calling instead of trying to defend your mistakes all you like, but no amount of pathetic jabs are going to make me forget how to use infinities properly.
For example if you increased total mass and number of equivalent star systems in the universe 1000x, the chance of earth-like life randomly emerging would not change if it was "infinitely improbable", because 1000x infinity is still just infinity. But that's stupid, the chance obviously goes up as the number of planets capable of generating earth-like life goes up, because it's not infinitely improbable, just very improbable.
Are you seriously going to pretend you don't remember admitting you set up that arbitrary hypothetical so that both outcomes are equally statistically likely? Stripping out the numbers and going "HurR DuRr, Me SpEll MaN WroNg" isn't going to make that look any less desperate son.
Once again you demonstrate you don’t understand limits. There’s no point wasting my time trying to teach you math which is clearly years beyond your ken. Suffice it to say the probability we are discussing approaches 1/∞ as we include the 27 independent fundemental variables of the Standard Model. Can you name any of these variables?
So you still don’t have even the slightest idea how humans and the lottery work. Stunning. Give this a read and let me know if it clicks for you or if you need more help:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Lotto_fraud_scandal
If you’re still stuck after that article, go on and google “lottery fraud” some more.
No offense, but did you take any math classes in college? You keep talking about mathematical proof that you've offered, but all you've given are ass-pulled "probabilities".
And 1 / (any number of big, probably made up numbers) is not zero, it's just a very small number. But when we're talking about astronomical scales, we're talking about very large numbers. Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff. And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.
Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?
You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.
Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:
Did you get on the STEM course on a dodgeball scholarship or something? Because those math credits seem to have been utterly wasted, but you're an absolute pro at dodging questions.
Oh look we've hit the "made up pseudoscience and flimsy claims of priestly expertise" section.
No it doesn't suffice to just arbitrarily say that the probability we're discussing approaches 1/∞, because that's wrong and you're a fucking quack. Go ahead and prove it, literally prove it. It doesn't matter if you think I will understand it or not, if you actually understand it and are certain it's true then you'll already have the proof ready to go so you can go on record as "not full of shit".
Haha, I didn't expect the answer to "are you seriously going to pretend that didn't happen?" to be "unironically yes, now let's completely change the hypothetical. Checkmate"