Based on the law of probabilities, the result of universal independent motivation could be only dispersal and anarchy, tending to a uniform death.
The law of probabilities also decisively refutes the appearance of the world by way of "accident," considering it irrational and impossible. Even calculations based on the mathematical law of probabilities confirm the necessity of correct guidance and planning for the world, in accordance with a precise program and a conscious will.
Great video. One thing to note. You have exactly the same chance of getting a straight flush as getting any other specific hand.
Imagine if you had a deck of cards with nothing on them. Are the chances that you'll get 5 specific cards any greater or lesser than if any other 5 specific cards? No, they are even chances.
We just see a pattern in the cards we got because we marked them. 2S, 7H, 4D, 10C, AH is of equal rarity.
@mikbetk Good point. It is true that any poker hand is equally likely as any other. But by the rules of poker, the number of hands considered "winning" is relatively few compared to the number of hands considered "losing". Perhaps the constants of nature are similar. Each combination is equally likely, but the number of combinations which allow life to exist are relatively few compared to the number of combinations which do not allow sufficient complexity to allow life to exist.
@danapeters Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. For instance a universe that had virtually no matter spread over a much larger area seems like it would have less of a chance than a smaller universe with lots of matter closer together. But that's not currently testable.
My point was we fit the universe, not the other way around. We're only able to look at how well our universe fits us specifically because we're able to fit this universe. But I think we're in agreement on this point.
but lets say the earth was a bit closer to the sun, thus hotter, and the beings on that earth could survive greater heat. Would they not say the same thing about their existence? "if the earth was a bit farther, life would not be possible." thus this argument is flawed as we are the product of our universe, and it is fine tuned for us, but that doesn't mean that life wouldn't be possible if constants were changed, just means, humans may not have been the result.
Based on the law of probabilities, the result of universal independent motivation could be only dispersal and anarchy, tending to a uniform death.
The law of probabilities also decisively refutes the appearance of the world by way of "accident," considering it irrational and impossible. Even calculations based on the mathematical law of probabilities confirm the necessity of correct guidance and planning for the world, in accordance with a precise program and a conscious will.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Great video. One thing to note. You have exactly the same chance of getting a straight flush as getting any other specific hand.
Imagine if you had a deck of cards with nothing on them. Are the chances that you'll get 5 specific cards any greater or lesser than if any other 5 specific cards? No, they are even chances.
We just see a pattern in the cards we got because we marked them. 2S, 7H, 4D, 10C, AH is of equal rarity.
mikbetk 7 months ago
@mikbetk Good point. It is true that any poker hand is equally likely as any other. But by the rules of poker, the number of hands considered "winning" is relatively few compared to the number of hands considered "losing". Perhaps the constants of nature are similar. Each combination is equally likely, but the number of combinations which allow life to exist are relatively few compared to the number of combinations which do not allow sufficient complexity to allow life to exist.
danapeters 7 months ago
@danapeters Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. For instance a universe that had virtually no matter spread over a much larger area seems like it would have less of a chance than a smaller universe with lots of matter closer together. But that's not currently testable.
My point was we fit the universe, not the other way around. We're only able to look at how well our universe fits us specifically because we're able to fit this universe. But I think we're in agreement on this point.
mikbetk 6 months ago
but lets say the earth was a bit closer to the sun, thus hotter, and the beings on that earth could survive greater heat. Would they not say the same thing about their existence? "if the earth was a bit farther, life would not be possible." thus this argument is flawed as we are the product of our universe, and it is fine tuned for us, but that doesn't mean that life wouldn't be possible if constants were changed, just means, humans may not have been the result.
dunolar1 1 year ago
Great stuff. Really enjoyed the talk...and Skepticamp Ottawa in general :D
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago