What is the probability there is NO higher power?

[PeterMP]

What evidence to we have about reality being or not being a computer simulation?

Do you disagree that a person assigning the probabilites in 1800, 1950, and today should be different?

[alexey]

Do you disagree that a person assigning the probabilites in 1800, 1950, and today should be different?

I do not think people should assign probabilities based on 0 evidence.

Now if we agree that we are talking about pulling probabilities out of our behinds, then I will agree that not having a faintest idea about what constitutes a computer simulation (1800) would generally cause a person to pull out lower probabilities compared to modern times.

[DjTj]

For a while, the distribution fell exactly that way. I agree with you btw, I cant see why anyone would choose anything other than 0, 50 or 100 and be able to explain why.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean the probability is 50%.

I don't know if it's going to rain on September 24, 2015, but I would put the probability at around 25% because that's about how often it rains.

I don't know if the Redskins will have a winning record at the end of the year, but I would put the probability at around 30% because our defense can't stop anyone and we make ridiculous mistakes when the game is on the line.

Unless the unknown you are trying to predict is a perfect coin flip, there is no reason for 50% to be the default position for "I don't know."

[Dan T.]

I believe in the Tower of Power. Does that count?

[Enter Apotheosis]

How can you possibly even estimate the probability of this when virtually all of the parameters are unknown unless you are absolutely convinced that this is not actually a probability but a certainty (i.e., those who vote 0 or 100)? This is like asking us to guess the probability that a 7 will be rolled with a die with an unknown number of sides that may or may not encompass a range of numbers that includes the number 7 or may or may not be numbered at all.

It's a complete shot in the dark.

For example (I'm sure I won't get this out right), the whole idea of Noah's Ark. How many animals would've needed to fit on a boat that wasn't all that big? I believe that Noah's Ark happened, but the variety of animals in existence at that time was much smaller than it is now. I guess I think the number of different animals was smaller, but those that did exist held the ability to mate and evolve into other species, etc.

Yep. I'm sure I ****ed up writing that. Oh well

That's one of the weaker attempts I've seen to reconcile Noah's Ark with science. Evolution doesn't occur at a rate anywhere near quickly enough to account for all of the genetic diversity in the world if you start from the animals that could plausibly fit on the ark and allow for a 4000 year incubation period. It's actually even worse when you consider human diversity under the same parameters. You'd be better off going with the flood being localized instead of worldwide and the tale being grossly exaggerated over time. Alternately, don't try to reconcile the story with science at all and roll with the idea that this one had god's fingerprints all over it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean the probability is 50%.

I don't know if it's going to rain on September 24, 2015, but I would put the probability at around 25% because that's about how often it rains.

I don't know if the Redskins will have a winning record at the end of the year, but I would put the probability at around 30% because our defense can't stop anyone and we make ridiculous mistakes when the game is on the line.

Unless the unknown you are trying to predict is a perfect coin flip, there is no reason for 50% to be the default position for "I don't know."

For the agnostic, given what they do and do not know, I cannot see how anything but 50/50 could be an option. But that's of course, just my opinion. I fall in the 100%(belief) category personally.

[Henry]

How can you possibly even estimate the probability of this when virtually all of the parameters are unknown unless you are absolutely convinced that this is not actually a probability but a certainty (i.e., those who vote 0 or 100)? This is like asking us to guess the probability that a 7 will be rolled with a die with an unknown number of sides that may or may not encompass a range of numbers that includes the number 7 or may or may not be numbered at all.

It's a complete shot in the dark.

Like I said, infinity over infinity.

[Wrong Direction]

For a while, the distribution fell exactly that way. I agree with you btw, I cant see why anyone would choose anything other than 0, 50 or 100 and be able to explain why.

I think historically people settle on some form of "god" to explain the unknown. God brought famine, drought, the sun, wind, etc. Then we learned more, so we know those things are part of physical nature. Others turn to god as a way of dealing with life. Think Ray Lewis and Torrey Smith's brother, for example.

I don't believe in an interventionist god. I think every day occurrences happen because of what this planet has evolved into (free will, presence of cancer, etc.). Torrey Smith's brother got on that motorcycle, made a decision that didn't work out and then the laws of physics made it so his body couldn't handle the impact. I don't think god made him crash or not survive that accident. Additionally, I believe the sun and our solar system were created from some big gas ball. Once it all settled down, I believe life was able to evolve into what we see today. I don't think it was placed here, per se.

So, for me, if there is a higher being, it came in the form of a creator of the universe. Did this all really come from nothing? That's hard to believe, but as I said above, people historically chalk things they don't understand up into God's will, or whatever. I'm not that guy. Even if there was a creator, I assume it's a natural creator. I believe that this is a natural universe, but I recognize that's an assumption lacking sufficient evidence to be 100% in that category. However, it is my strong belief. I'm not totally on the fence (50/50).

So, I'm not 50/50, but I can't be 100% either because I recognize my assumptions. Therefore, I put myself in the 90-99% No God range. That's how.

[PeterMP]

How can you possibly even estimate the probability of this when virtually all of the parameters are unknown unless you are absolutely convinced that this is not actually a probability but a certainty (i.e., those who vote 0 or 100)? This is like asking us to guess the probability that a 7 will be rolled with a die with an unknown number of sides that may or may not encompass a range of numbers that includes the number 7 or may or may not be numbered at all.

It's a complete shot in the dark.

We SHOULD ALWAYS be able to assign a naive hypothesis, which essentially means assigning a naive probability.

Let me take on your example directly:

what is the probability of rollling a 7 if you have a 7 sided die (assuming that's possible in your world) where the numbers are 1-7

It is 1/7. What is the probability of having a 7 sided die, when you can have an infinite number sided die (I'm going to assume we aren't putting limits on size of the sides so we could put really large numbers on the die) 1/infinity.

So the total probability works out to be something like:

1/7*1/infinity

Now, let's consider the same for an eight sided die:

1/8*1/infinity

Now you even included the possibility that there were numbers on the die. The probability of getting a 7 then is 0 and it would still seem the probability of there being an unnumber die as 1/infinity so that turns:

0*1/infinity = 0

Also the same is true for any die with less than 7. So the total sum of them would be 0.

The extreme naive hypothesis then turns into something like:

the sum of 1/n*1/infinity where n is from 7 to infinity.

Now that probability might be REALLY wrong, but based on the information given, that's what the estimate would be.

IMO, if we are going to say that we can't even start to assign probabilities to something, then there is no reason to attempt to even discuss it or things that flow from it in a logical or scientific manner. The use of logic should just be thrown out the window.

If you can't even start to estimate a probability that there is no higher power, it doesn't make sense to me to discuss what we should do if there isn't in a logical/scientific manner.

**EDIT**

And vice versa

[SnyderShrugged]

I think historically people settle on some form of "god" to explain the unknown. God brought famine, drought, the sun, wind, etc. Then we learned more, so we know those things are part of physical nature. Others turn to god as a way of dealing with life. Think Ray Lewis and Torrey Smith's brother, for example.

I don't believe in an interventionist god. I think every day occurrences happen because of what this planet has evolved into (free will, presence of cancer, etc.). Torrey Smith's brother got on that motorcycle, made a decision that didn't work out and then the laws of physics made it so his body couldn't handle the impact. I don't think god made him crash or not survive that accident. Additionally, I believe the sun and our solar system were created from some big gas ball. Once it all settled down, I believe life was able to evolve into what we see today. I don't think it was placed here, per se.

So, for me, if there is a higher being, it came in the form of a creator of the universe. Did this all really come from nothing? That's hard to believe, but as I said above, people historically chalk things they don't understand up into God's will, or whatever. I'm not that guy. Even if there was a creator, I assume it's a natural creator. I believe that this is a natural universe, but I recognize that's an assumption lacking sufficient evidence to be 100% in that category. However, it is my strong belief. I'm not totally on the fence (50/50).

So, I'm not 50/50, but I can't be 100% either because I recognize my assumptions. Therefore, I put myself in the 90-99% No God range. That's how.

I understand your perspective, but what differentiates your placement from say the 79-60% bracket?

[Wrong Direction]

I understand your perspective, but what differentiates your placement from say the 79-60% bracket?

My personal degree of certainty. It's clearly subjective, but I'm fairly certain (just like the faithful are often absolutely certain in god). I guess you could chalk it up to my own faith in science/nature, which is slightly but not significantly limited.

[Kosher Ham]

You mean law enforcement or the President ?

This thread is really odd.

[Koolblue13]

You mean law enforcement or the President ?

This thread is really odd.

That's what I just thought. I came in looking to chat and just backed out.

[Kosher Ham]

That's what I just thought. I came in looking to chat and just backed out.

Yeah, and I don't even get what the OP is trying to get out of it.

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, and I don't even get what the OP is trying to get out of it.

I don't either. I get the is it possible? Are you certain you are 100%? Line of thought. My guess is that PMP is getting sick of alexey and thought of it as a way to call him out, because of the certainty required to not vote at 100%, but that is just my guess.

When nature got involved in the OP, is where I started to wonder.

[PeterMP]

I don't either. I get the is it possible? Are you certain you are 100%? Line of thought. My guess is that PMP is getting sick of alexey and thought of it as a way to call him out, because of the certainty required to not vote at 100%, but that is just my guess.

When nature got involved in the OP, is where I started to wonder.

The nature part comes from my best understanding of wicca and related belief systesm (which admittedly isn't that great).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Theology

"Wiccans "regard the whole cosmos as alive, both as a whole and in all of its parts", but that "such an organic view of the cosmos cannot be fully expressed, and lived, without the concept of the God and Goddess. There is no manifestation without polarization; so at the highest creative level, that of Divinity, the polarization must be the clearest and most powerful of all, reflecting and spreading itself through all the microcosmic levels as well"."

If you'd like, you could replace the word cosmos for nature.

I'm curious to what people think, and if and how people will go about putting a probability on something like this.

[Koolblue13]

The nature part comes from my best understanding of wicca and related belief systesm (which admittedly isn't that great).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Theology

"Wiccans "regard the whole cosmos as alive, both as a whole and in all of its parts", but that "such an organic view of the cosmos cannot be fully expressed, and lived, without the concept of the God and Goddess. There is no manifestation without polarization; so at the highest creative level, that of Divinity, the polarization must be the clearest and most powerful of all, reflecting and spreading itself through all the microcosmic levels as well"."

If you'd like, you could replace the word cosmos for nature.

I'm curious to what people think, and if and how people will go about putting a probability on something like this.

I know several Wiccans, including my sister (who doesn't call herself a witch or godess) and the difference is there is no removal. The feeling you get is of one love, not a before or after, a above or below. One world, one universe, one life, one love. It's an enlightenment you get from the acknowledgement that we are all of the same thing.

[PeterMP]

I know several Wiccans, including my sister (who doesn't call herself a witch or godess) and the difference is there is no removal. The feeling you get is of one love, not a before or after, a above or below. One world, one universe, one life, one love. It's an enlightenment you get from the acknowledgement that we are all of the same thing.

I've known wiccans that believed more than that. That there is/was a creator(s) and that was why it is all one and from that relationship power could be derived (in terms of doing "magic").

[Koolblue13]

I've known wiccans that believed more than that. That there is/was a creator(s) and that was why it is all one and from that relationship power could be derived (in terms of doing "magic").

I like to believe in fantasy. I think it would be cool if dragons and unicorns were real. I do believe we will eventually understand the hows and why and not need to believe in magic.

[Stadium-Armory]

I don't practice organized religion, but it seems to me that until the unanswered questions are answered, one of the likely scenarios is that 'some higher power' created something that led to what we know today.

[alexey]

I don't practice organized religion, but it seems to me that until the unanswered questions are answered, one of the likely scenarios is that 'some higher power' created something that led to what we know today.

I think the big question is about intelligence/sentience of this higher power.

We know that our mental machinery is geared to be very good at detecting other minds and purpose... to the point where people will detect minds and purpose where no mind and no purpose exist. We know this. Detecting a big transcendental higher mind with a higher purpose seems an obvious outcome of having this machinery.

Transcendental sentience is a very complex thing. It may look like a simple explanation but it is not.

[brandymac27]

I know several Wiccans, including my sister (who doesn't call herself a witch or godess) and the difference is there is no removal. The feeling you get is of one love, not a before or after, a above or below. One world, one universe, one life, one love. It's an enlightenment you get from the acknowledgement that we are all of the same thing.

One of the many reasons I love Emerson so much.

[Zazzaro703]

Well I'm pretty sure now there are football Gods and they've had enough of the ref lockout as well. How else do you explain the perfect set of circumstances leading up to the only Monday Night Football game in history ending on a touchdown. Throw in the huge egg on NFLs face now and it has to be some sort of divine intervention from the Football Gods saving this charade to playout in front of a national audience.

[Koolblue13]

One of the many reasons I love Emerson so much.

Emerson was nothing without Lake and Palmer.

Tarkus FTW!

[sideshow24]

Same probability that the NFL spontaneously came into existence