The probability of man

My response to migkillertwo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=824dld4fSBg

Thanks Tooltime9901 for your response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iCuJbPiQuU

Category:

Education

Tags:

• migkillertwo
• tooltime9901
• probability
• life
• universe
• humanity
• evolution
• natural
• laws
• god
• supernatural

[8WholeThing]

You can do better. The life form analogy fails as it would not only be legitimate that it had a creator, it would be correct, even if the creature was incorrect about the abilities and motives of its creator.

Point out that F.C. Adams published a paper in universes with different constants, 25% would still have stars. Others say that ours would still be viable without the weak nuclear force.

[askegg]

Are you suggesting we may be created, but are so flawed we cannot recognise its abilities and motives?

My point is the constants themselves are simply a description of the universe. There is no reason to assume the universe could be any different - it just is.

[alphacause]

(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldn't say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.

[askegg]

Excellent analogy!

[ProjectPaladin]

I compare this to a game of poker... You can ramble on and on about how improbable it is to be dealt a Royal Flush in one game, but when you actually get it dealt, it doesn't matter, how improbable you thought it was to be dealt that hand, because - however small the odds - you got dealt a Royal Flush...

Talking about a certain event that already happened in the past and render it improbable, is nonsensical at best, because it already happened, no matter how small the odds...

[Raptor302]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[withperfecttiming]

external variables? external "things" you say?

[withperfecttiming]

you are using childlike psychology.

[newexperiment]

Or consider this,

Does e^[(i)(pi)] + 1 = 0 hold true in curved universes? If it does, than the curvature must change more than just pi to keep the equation true.

[newexperiment]

If you are still having trouble understanding what I mean try this.

Chose a positively curved space.

Then derive 'the value' of a geodesic circle's diameter into it's circumference in this space, but with one restriction: you may not use the value of pi to derive, calculate or represent your answer.

Notice that you can't. Notice that this(the fact that you can't) sets pi to an unchanging constant due to logic, not due to observation. To change pi in another universe you have to change logic.

[bdf2718]

OK, now you have entered territory that is way beyond my knowledge. You seem to know what you're talking about.

[newexperiment]

Here i mean 'straight' in so far as being able to produce triangles in the new curved space that DO have a sum of 180.

But that's not my point. If it turned out that our universe was curved and we were able to measure the curvature of it, the value for the quotient of a Real-world circle and it's real-world diameter would be said to be (k)(pi) for some constant k which accounts for the curvature.

But pi doesn't change. Pi's value is platonic.

[newexperiment]

=/. What I was trying to say would only work for translating straight lines in dimensions higher than 2, and for circles higher than 3.

In uncurved R3, a straight line can still match the definition of a geodesic. Translating R3 to some curved R3 would curve said line/geodesic.

However, there exists a curved line (not having the properties of a geodesic) in R3 that when translated to the same cruved R3 produces a 'straight' line (although still not a geodesic).

[bdf2718]

When you talk of straight lines in curved space instead of geodesics, you worry me.

When you say that "flat" circles exist in curved spaces you make me wonder whether you are talking about local exceptions (the point I made) or implying that everywhere in a curved space circles are "flat."

If our universe is not flat the value of pi, as measured, varies depending upon location and size of circle (theoretically, anyway, the discrepancy may be too small to actually measure).

[newexperiment]

When I asked 'why not'? I wasn't being rhetorical. It is indeed no longer straight. These comment sections are to small always mean what you say. Hope it doesn't complicate things too much. I tried.

[newexperiment]

You'd argue that there is no such thing as a straight line in a curved universe.

Think of a vector in a non curved space. Take the same vector in curved space. Is it still straight? Why not?

Applying the same curve function(matrix) to the vector that relates the curved and uncurved spaces curves the vector. But there exists a curved line in uncurved space that is straight in curved space. Hence straight lines exist in curved space. By the same reason, 'flat' circles exist in curved spaces.