RE: The theist evolution argument
May 3, 2014 at 11:31 pm
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2014 at 11:34 pm by Chas.)
(May 2, 2014 at 9:50 am)Jason_ab Wrote: So what you are saying max is that when the number of tests touches infinity, then all possible outcomes have 100% propabillity.
That's a valid response I guess.
(May 2, 2014 at 9:50 am)Jason_ab Wrote: So what you are saying max is that when the number of tests touches infinity, then all possible outcomes have 100% propabillity.
That's a valid response I guess.
No.
The point is that the argument is naive at best. If we could go back to the conditions of any time in the past and let it all happen, the probability that it would come out the same are vanishingly small.
Their hidden assumption is that it has to result in us. Well, no, it doesn't.
(May 3, 2014 at 2:21 am)max-greece Wrote: I'd say there is - but I agree with Schroedinger and you all, apparently, don't.
Schroedinger's cat thought experiment is as follows:
Cat and a loaded gun in a sealed box.
You do not know the cat is alive or dead until you open the box to find out.
Therefore the cat is both alive and dead in the box until you open it.
Schroedinger was trying to show that the idea of the observer determining the outcome was ridiculous. I agree with him. None of you do.
Wrong, grasshopper.
I agree with you.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
