6 ms·

I disagree. You say that "Things are not organizing better than they 'ought to, they've just happened to organize to a sufficient point that we exist and perce

I disagree. You say that "Things are not organizing better than they 'ought to, they've just happened to organize to a sufficient point that we exist and perceive this process and say things about it". Let's assume we are but one of an infinite path of possibilities for slightly different starting conditions of a universe. When you get to this magnitude of combinations, it is no longer sufficient to compare individual combinations -- rather it is infinite sets that make the most sense to compare -- classes of possible universes in a sense. You are comparing cardinalities, not members of the different sets themselves. And if you think about all of the possibilities, it is almost certain (borrowing the mathematical usage of that term) that our universe is unlike almost all combinations, and to a significant degree. I could be wrong here, but it is certainly something that could be proven (or disproven) by an expert mathematician. So, when you say we won a lottery, I think it is instead more like you threw a dart at a real number line between 0 and 1 and the dart landed exactly on 0.4. It's not impossible, but the probability of that happening is still 0. (Those two statements are actually not incompatible. There's a good question on the math stack exchange about it).

jlgreco 14y ago
What calinet6 is saying is that the reason you think "it is almost certain (borrowing the mathematical usage of that term) that our universe is unlike almost all combinations, and to a significant degree" is because this is the world that you live in. That makes it seem like some sort of special case from all the other innumerable possibilities. In reality the only special thing about it is that it is the one that happened to happen.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0. (Which does not make it impossible.) If the odds are 0, then it seems more reasonable that there is a better, more probable explanation that the universe is the way it is than chance. It's not based on what I want to believe, or even something from self-selection bias. It is something that can be calculated and either proven true or false, probably with set theory of some kind.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    In your dart example, would you say that whatever particular position a dart lands on would be better described by something other than chance?
    - Xcelerate 14y ago
      Well, the crux with my example is that the dart lands exactly on 0.4. There is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so what is the probability it would land exactly on 0.4? Zero, of course. But that still doesn't make it impossible. I'm not saying no to the fact that it could have randomly landed there, but given that the probability is 0, I am saying that it is possible there is something else we have not discovered that provides a more probable explanation than chance. *A different type of analogy is the old spontaneous generation theory for maggots in meat. For a long time, people thought they just randomly appeared. Upon closer investigation, it turns out there were other, more deterministic processes going on.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        The probability that it lands on exactly. 4 is exactly the same as the probability of it landing on any other particular number. You place additional significance on . 4, but that is for cultural reasons. If I flip a coin 5 times in a row, HHHHH is just as likely as any other combination, but humans have the tendency to think that is weird or special. Anyway... If I understand your hangup correctly, it seems you are mistakenly thinking that all imaginable possible realities should have been equally likely (as positions on a random dart board would be). Of course this is not true; a reality where snakes developed internal organs that function as internal combustion engines which they use to power propellers is very unlikely indeed. The reason of course is that this reality did not arise by picking one randomly from a bag of all possible realities, but rather developed over time through random mutations that were selected for by natural selection. Now, of the possible realities random mutation and natural selection could have created, this world could be said to be equally likely. There is not some sort of "future purpose" as Penrose says, that is being driven towards.
      - 14y ago
Xcelerate 14y ago
Okay, apparently there's some person that doesn't like what I'm saying and is downranking my posts. I checked the YC guidelines for posting and I do not appear to be violating any of them. If you're downranking my posts just because you disagree with my position and my exposition of it, well... then that's just not very nice.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Seriously? Really? C'mon... Is there a way I can see who did that?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    (I have not downvoted you. I don't have the karma to downvote yet and have been replying to you so I can't anyway) People upvote for agreement, it only makes sense that they downvote for disagreement as well. I'm fairly certain that PG has said that he is ok with that before. You can be pretty sure that you will always be downvoted for complaining about downvotes though, even by people that may agree with you.

jlgreco 14y ago

What calinet6 is saying is that the reason you think "it is almost certain (borrowing the mathematical usage of that term) that our universe is unlike almost all combinations, and to a significant degree" is because this is the world that you live in. That makes it seem like some sort of special case from all the other innumerable possibilities. In reality the only special thing about it is that it is the one that happened to happen.

Xcelerate 14y ago
What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0. (Which does not make it impossible.) If the odds are 0, then it seems more reasonable that there is a better, more probable explanation that the universe is the way it is than chance. It's not based on what I want to believe, or even something from self-selection bias. It is something that can be calculated and either proven true or false, probably with set theory of some kind.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  In your dart example, would you say that whatever particular position a dart lands on would be better described by something other than chance?
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    Well, the crux with my example is that the dart lands exactly on 0.4. There is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so what is the probability it would land exactly on 0.4? Zero, of course. But that still doesn't make it impossible. I'm not saying no to the fact that it could have randomly landed there, but given that the probability is 0, I am saying that it is possible there is something else we have not discovered that provides a more probable explanation than chance. *A different type of analogy is the old spontaneous generation theory for maggots in meat. For a long time, people thought they just randomly appeared. Upon closer investigation, it turns out there were other, more deterministic processes going on.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The probability that it lands on exactly. 4 is exactly the same as the probability of it landing on any other particular number. You place additional significance on . 4, but that is for cultural reasons. If I flip a coin 5 times in a row, HHHHH is just as likely as any other combination, but humans have the tendency to think that is weird or special. Anyway... If I understand your hangup correctly, it seems you are mistakenly thinking that all imaginable possible realities should have been equally likely (as positions on a random dart board would be). Of course this is not true; a reality where snakes developed internal organs that function as internal combustion engines which they use to power propellers is very unlikely indeed. The reason of course is that this reality did not arise by picking one randomly from a bag of all possible realities, but rather developed over time through random mutations that were selected for by natural selection. Now, of the possible realities random mutation and natural selection could have created, this world could be said to be equally likely. There is not some sort of "future purpose" as Penrose says, that is being driven towards.
    - 14y ago

Xcelerate 14y ago

Okay, apparently there's some person that doesn't like what I'm saying and is downranking my posts. I checked the YC guidelines for posting and I do not appear to be violating any of them. If you're downranking my posts just because you disagree with my position and my exposition of it, well... then that's just not very nice.

Xcelerate 14y ago
Seriously? Really? C'mon... Is there a way I can see who did that?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  (I have not downvoted you. I don't have the karma to downvote yet and have been replying to you so I can't anyway) People upvote for agreement, it only makes sense that they downvote for disagreement as well. I'm fairly certain that PG has said that he is ok with that before. You can be pretty sure that you will always be downvoted for complaining about downvotes though, even by people that may agree with you.