(April 23, 2014 at 6:21 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Ray really needs to read a book. First he never defines kind. Second he ask questions and ignores the answers.

One wonders if this is intentional.

(April 23, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Cato Wrote: Heywood,
It's impossible for me to accept that you were just role playing for Pinser's edification when you immediately continue to float the notion that innumerable measured events/conditions aren't really constant, but rather just a large collection of chance occurrences that just happen to arrive at the same value every time.

I believe the constants of nature are indeed constant. That belief is one of faith because it is possible a constant could just be a large collection of chance occurrences that just happen to arrive at the same value every time.

If Hugh Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true....there exist a world were every six sided die always lands on 2. In that world...dice rolls are constant.

(April 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Cato Wrote: Heywood,
It's impossible for me to accept that you were just role playing for Pinser's edification when you immediately continue to float the notion that innumerable measured events/conditions aren't really constant, but rather just a large collection of chance occurrences that just happen to arrive at the same value every time.

I believe the constants of nature are indeed constant. That belief is one of faith because it is possible a constant could just be a large collection of chance occurrences that just happen to arrive at the same value every time.

Please quantify the probability of this specific possibility, or at least describe how in principle it can be done.

If you don't know how this is done, or why this needs to be done, don't think it is something that is unknown, or is not required to be known for anyone to acquire more than the most superficial understanding of science.

You see, you may think fundaments of science is faith, it is not. It is a rigorous evaluation of the probability of each of the possible alternative explanation being true in light of available evidence.

(April 23, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: Please quantify the probability of this possibility, or at least describe how in principle it can be done.

50/50. Either it happens, or it doesn't. Duh.

(April 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 9:16 am)ThePinsir Wrote: I wish someone like this ass hat would interview me one day. This makes me wonder how many good answers were cut from the video lol

I'll pretend to be like this ass hat and interview you so that you can get your wish.

Question: How do you know it is a fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second?

(April 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: Please quantify the probability of this possibility, or at least describe how in principle it can be done.

50/50. Either it happens, or it doesn't. Duh.

Huh, no.

If available observation say heads came up 10 out of 10 times, or 100 out of 100 time, is that consistent with the basic probability of heads or tails being 50/50?

(April 23, 2014 at 6:37 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:21 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Ray really needs to read a book. First he never defines kind. Second he ask questions and ignores the answers.

One wonders if this is intentional.

I think he genuinely believes what he's saying but is afraid to engage because he genuinely fears questioning his beliefs.

(April 23, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 50/50. Either it happens, or it doesn't. Duh.

Huh, no.

If the fundamental probability is really 50/50, then what would the probability of 10 out of 10 observation, to say nothing of 1 million out of 1 million observations, all coming up heads?

You might think the probability that the fundamental probability is really 50/50 is very slight if 10 out of 10 observations all came up heads.

Hey - Chuck - I'm poking fun at Heywood's abuse of the Principle of Indifference here. You're fucking up my joke, man.

(April 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 9:16 am)ThePinsir Wrote: I wish someone like this ass hat would interview me one day. This makes me wonder how many good answers were cut from the video lol

I'll pretend to be like this ass hat and interview you so that you can get your wish.

Question: How do you know it is a fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second?

The question is invalid: the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT 186 000 miles per second. It is 186,282.397 miles per second.

I know this to be a fact because I own a candle and a phenomenally good stopwatch. So there.

Boru

(April 23, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Heywood Wrote: I believe the constants of nature are indeed constant. That belief is one of faith because it is possible a constant could just be a large collection of chance occurrences that just happen to arrive at the same value every time.

Please quantify the probability of this possibility, or at least describe how in principle it can be done.

Otherwise this is just another fart in the wind.

The more observations you have which are constant, the more likely it becomes that what you are observing is indeed constant. So for any constant of nature whose properties are derived solely on observation, I would say the probability of it actually being random is X....and X is greater than 0. Unless you have observed everything, you will never have enough observations to make X = 0.

---

(April 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Chuck Wrote: Huh, no.

If the fundamental probability is really 50/50, then what would the probability of 10 out of 10 observation, to say nothing of 1 million out of 1 million observations, all coming up heads?

You might think the probability that the fundamental probability is really 50/50 is very slight if 10 out of 10 observations all came up heads.

Hey - Chuck - I'm poking fun at Heywood's abuse of the Principle of Indifference here. You're fucking up my joke, man.

It would be funny if I actually abused the Principle of Indifference.