It was not an analogy. It was used to show the probability of there being life, and because there is a specific probablility that one person will win the same lottery everyday for a hundred years has a definite probability, it's a valid statement. Furthermore, if trillions of people played the lottery, the probability of one person winning everyday for a hundred years would still be extremely unlikely, as is the probability universe that permits life because it has time, space, and energy.
Here's the funny thing - you speak of probabilities as if we have definite numbers for analyzing this, and there was an objective reason for choosing his analogy. The problem is that we don't know the probabilities. His entire analogy, and your argument for it, are utter bunk.
I instead explained a more accurate analogy for the beginning of life. I'm not claiming to know specific probabilities, simply the processes required listed in succession.
read "The God Delusion". Dawkins destroys the creationist argument with the anthropic principle. Same argument as here, but seriously, he destroys it.
Also, is that a white DS lite you have? Damn I've been trying to find one of those for a long time. All I can find are the DSi's and I don't want one of those.
Cool. Also, why can't these people SEE the flaws they make? Mig isn't stupid, he's just.....ignorant? It seems he likes to argue his beliefs even when logic says otherwise. Making every attempt to show some "flaw" in Science when not even understand his own. It just pisses me off that he HAS the mental capacity to know and understand the truth, but doesn't because he's being held back by Dogma.
imo the human race can never understand the beginning of existance, why do you think we created religion (stories to explain what we don't understand)
Line up one billion Domino pieces. Then tell people who observe this to imagine each piece is a year in time. Then we'll begin to comprehend how much time that is.
Awesome video. I love the fact that you pointed out the horrible analogy that was made. So many Youtubers, when making arguments, use ridiculous analogies that don't relate to their original reference and people don't point it out enough. Just because someone can think of a situation that in a one sided view looks VAGUELY similar, doesn't mean their argument holds any weight. Bravo.
Another problem is the fact that we can't compare our universe with universes. Perhaps ours really did win "the lottery of life." Maybe we actually are the universe that drew the lucky, golden ticket. The unlikelihood of that is impossible to measure since we have no way of knowing how many other universes are playing this lottery.
And, of course, life isn't nearly as Special™ as the religious like to claim, it's just a particular kind of cohesive chemical processes that can replicate themselves...big deal.
Stop saying that there was no time before the BB. That is simply not known at this point in time. Some hypothesize that this is the case and some don't.
Well, since time expanded with the BB - time as we know it did begin then.
This is not to suggest there could have not been any type of causality beforehand, or that the causality could not have taken place somewhere where some aspect of time existed - those are indeed possibilities.
However, our time line begins at the BB. Its not that time didn't exist beforehand, but it wasn't the same time that we exist in.
The rest of your point is correct though - to suggest that all of what could be time started with our universe would be overstepping what we know. All we know is that our current space-time started with the BB. Thanks for making me clarify what I meant - I should get in the habit of using more precise terms.
Another thing I like to bring up: EVERYTHING is like winning the lottery with a million numbers in it when you are looking forwards.
Let's say I look at a snowflake on the ground. What was the probability of those exact water molecules coming together in a cloud and forming that exact shape of snowflake, falling a few kilometers onto that exact spot on the ground? When you look forwards, everything is incredibly improbable if you think of it happening in an exact way.
I love that analogy! Or whats the probability of me walking on the exact grains i do when on the beach? The odds are ridiculous until you take into account all the factors that brought those particular snowflakes or grains of sand exactly where they are. Then it's not so improbable.
Yeah exactly. Anything can be "impossible" if you are predicting exactly what will happen. Like if someone had to place a bet on which grains of sand you were going to step on (and they had to pick every single one you stepped on but not choose a single one you didn't step on). "Impossible" things happen all the time, that's what people don't realize.
Yes, and I think if you could change a small detail in the past, this change would gradually propagate and eventually practically everything would be different. Different people living ("you" have 200 million sperms as competitors, why should "you" win again in slightly different circumstances?), also resulting in a different history, different dictators, different wars etc. Strict determinists would of course object, it's a wide field to argue ...
im glad to see someone has finally expressed my thoughts on life thoroughly. thanx alot great job
THEOneandonly818 1 year ago
chickipa!
ThePirateGrog 1 year ago
It was not an analogy. It was used to show the probability of there being life, and because there is a specific probablility that one person will win the same lottery everyday for a hundred years has a definite probability, it's a valid statement. Furthermore, if trillions of people played the lottery, the probability of one person winning everyday for a hundred years would still be extremely unlikely, as is the probability universe that permits life because it has time, space, and energy.
DrPhilIsKool 2 years ago
Here's the funny thing - you speak of probabilities as if we have definite numbers for analyzing this, and there was an objective reason for choosing his analogy. The problem is that we don't know the probabilities. His entire analogy, and your argument for it, are utter bunk.
I instead explained a more accurate analogy for the beginning of life. I'm not claiming to know specific probabilities, simply the processes required listed in succession.
You've missed the point.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are smart and funny... but incorrect.
fortruth8989 2 years ago
time isnt an actual thing its an idea
technically saying the universe is always in its current state, time doesnt reallly exist, its just an idea to make our lives easier
time has always existed, and at the same time, time has never existed
get it?
coolbeans0325 2 years ago
Hey Sol, just to let you know you spelled cheuvanism wrong . . it's "chauvinism". You can delete this comment upon viewing.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
read "The God Delusion". Dawkins destroys the creationist argument with the anthropic principle. Same argument as here, but seriously, he destroys it.
onlyguitar1001 2 years ago
nice very nice.
you hit the nail on the head.
gassmanw 2 years ago
Much better explained than Migkiller.
Also, is that a white DS lite you have? Damn I've been trying to find one of those for a long time. All I can find are the DSi's and I don't want one of those.
Anyway, keep the pwnage coming!
JOKERSFREAK 2 years ago
Yup, its an old white DS. I bought it along time ago.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
@SolRosenberg84
Cool. Also, why can't these people SEE the flaws they make? Mig isn't stupid, he's just.....ignorant? It seems he likes to argue his beliefs even when logic says otherwise. Making every attempt to show some "flaw" in Science when not even understand his own. It just pisses me off that he HAS the mental capacity to know and understand the truth, but doesn't because he's being held back by Dogma.
JOKERSFREAK 2 years ago
@JOKERSFREAK
*understanding
JOKERSFREAK 2 years ago
WOW! nice vid, perfect logic! good job
vince19811981 2 years ago
Did you honestly sit there and do that math? I find that extremely amusing.
joegt123 2 years ago
Nicely done.
DblOSmith 2 years ago
I really like your jacket.
PublicityFtF 2 years ago
nice cowlick lol
mrbobsevil 2 years ago
Your videos always get 5 stars.. There is a good reason for this.
karadan100 2 years ago
My brain explodes every time I think about these possibilities.
joegt123 2 years ago
imo the human race can never understand the beginning of existance, why do you think we created religion (stories to explain what we don't understand)
oh and it's improbable* not unprobable ^_^
ccofmight 2 years ago
WE cannot do justice to 1 billion years. We simply cannot comprehend how much time that is.
Antiks72 2 years ago
Line up one billion Domino pieces. Then tell people who observe this to imagine each piece is a year in time. Then we'll begin to comprehend how much time that is.
joegt123 2 years ago
Awesome video. I love the fact that you pointed out the horrible analogy that was made. So many Youtubers, when making arguments, use ridiculous analogies that don't relate to their original reference and people don't point it out enough. Just because someone can think of a situation that in a one sided view looks VAGUELY similar, doesn't mean their argument holds any weight. Bravo.
OppressiveBoredom 2 years ago
Another problem is the fact that we can't compare our universe with universes. Perhaps ours really did win "the lottery of life." Maybe we actually are the universe that drew the lucky, golden ticket. The unlikelihood of that is impossible to measure since we have no way of knowing how many other universes are playing this lottery.
uberpaine 2 years ago
I think Lauwrence Krauss said it best:
"The universe is very big and very old and improbable events happen every day."
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
re: lottery
Exactly. Rna/Dna only had to happen once. People win the lottery all the time, even when the odds are worse.
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago
And, of course, life isn't nearly as Special™ as the religious like to claim, it's just a particular kind of cohesive chemical processes that can replicate themselves...big deal.
BionicDance 2 years ago 7
Another great video. It's also good to see the trademark SolRosenberg premature cut-off at the end.
simeoneous 2 years ago
Stop saying that there was no time before the BB. That is simply not known at this point in time. Some hypothesize that this is the case and some don't.
Cygnus65 2 years ago
Well, since time expanded with the BB - time as we know it did begin then.
This is not to suggest there could have not been any type of causality beforehand, or that the causality could not have taken place somewhere where some aspect of time existed - those are indeed possibilities.
However, our time line begins at the BB. Its not that time didn't exist beforehand, but it wasn't the same time that we exist in.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
@SolRosenberg84
"time expanded"
Do you mean space-time expanded. That would make more sense I think.
"it wasn't the same time that we exist in"
Do you mean the era of the current universe? That I can agree with.
Sorry for being obtuse. I just hear this a lot that time "began". That is simply taking it too far given what we (don't) know.
Cygnus65 2 years ago
>Do you mean space-time expanded
Yup.
>Do you mean the era of the current universe?
Of course
The rest of your point is correct though - to suggest that all of what could be time started with our universe would be overstepping what we know. All we know is that our current space-time started with the BB. Thanks for making me clarify what I meant - I should get in the habit of using more precise terms.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Thanks. I think it would make excellent videos even better :).
Cygnus65 2 years ago
Yeah good points.
Another thing I like to bring up: EVERYTHING is like winning the lottery with a million numbers in it when you are looking forwards.
Let's say I look at a snowflake on the ground. What was the probability of those exact water molecules coming together in a cloud and forming that exact shape of snowflake, falling a few kilometers onto that exact spot on the ground? When you look forwards, everything is incredibly improbable if you think of it happening in an exact way.
ubergossen 2 years ago 2
However, it is incredibly probably for SOME water molecules to form SOME kind of snowflake and land SOMEwhere.
Just as it is likely probable that SOME chemicals would form SOME kind of life SOMEwhere in the universe.
ubergossen 2 years ago 2
I love that analogy! Or whats the probability of me walking on the exact grains i do when on the beach? The odds are ridiculous until you take into account all the factors that brought those particular snowflakes or grains of sand exactly where they are. Then it's not so improbable.
TheSkepticalArtist 2 years ago
Yeah exactly. Anything can be "impossible" if you are predicting exactly what will happen. Like if someone had to place a bet on which grains of sand you were going to step on (and they had to pick every single one you stepped on but not choose a single one you didn't step on). "Impossible" things happen all the time, that's what people don't realize.
ubergossen 2 years ago
"EVERYTHING is like winning the lottery..."
Yes, and I think if you could change a small detail in the past, this change would gradually propagate and eventually practically everything would be different. Different people living ("you" have 200 million sperms as competitors, why should "you" win again in slightly different circumstances?), also resulting in a different history, different dictators, different wars etc. Strict determinists would of course object, it's a wide field to argue ...
eltamin1966 2 years ago
man you videos are always awsome glad im subbed to you
curtdammit 2 years ago 4
i cant stand false analogies.
jay666KJ 2 years ago