Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We are informed: Odds of our existence not infinitely small after all

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Ethan Siegel at Forbes:

This is true for all types of probabilities! So the next time something unlikely happens, or you realize that something very unlikely must have already occurred, remember that no matter how unlikely it is, the odds of it happening weren’t infinitely small. Its existence, just like our existence, already disproves that possibility! More.

Siegel attempt to marshall Bayesianism to make his case that vanishingly small odds make no difference. But, of course, it isn’t the odds of single events that we must consider, but the odds of complex patterns, not always dependent on each other.

Nice try, of the kind that traditional media robotically sponsor. Can readers imagine the uproar if someone argued for the opposite view?

See also: Is Bret Stephens right about progressives and science? Possibly, the enraged ex-Times readers are too young to recall the era when newspapers routinely published non-editorial board opinions on the op-ed page.

and

Re odds, in real life, Robert Marks on new evolutionary informatics book – not Darwin-friendly

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Ethan Siegel: In order for you to exist, a great many unlikely events needed to unfold in exactly the way that they did.
That’s not as obvious as you think it is, Ethan. There may very well be nothing ‘unlikely’ about any of those events, providing they were under the strict control of a Creator.
E.Siegel: …. the Universe itself must have unfolded in such a way as to make all of this possible. Yet there's one thing we can be sure of in this entire series of unlikely events, occurring one after the other: nothing that occurred at any point had an infinitesimal likelihood.
Ethan, I take it that you assume the universe to be entirely physical. If so, consider the possibility that there was no way for the universe to produce life without external intelligent input. In that case events did take place with an ‘infinitesimal likelihood’ within a physical context.Origenes
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Siegel attempt to marshall Bayesianism to make his case that vanishingly small odds make no difference. But, of course, it isn’t the odds of single events that we must consider, but the odds of complex patterns, not always dependent on each other.
Odd. I read Siegel's piece as being specifically about the odds of complex patterns. His point is simply that when one combines different events, each with probability >0, the probability of them all is >0. I think he is implicitly assuming conditional independence (there have to be some assumptions about the probabilities for his argument to be mathematically sound, but there are a few ways of setting this up).Bob O'H
May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
I'd love to see a card shark sit down to a Poker game with these folks and see how long they hold onto their view of probabilities as the shark somehow manages to draw royal flush after royal flush. "Hey, the existence of that fifth royal flush in a row, like our existence, disproves the possibility that the odds against it were infinitely small. Care for another hand?"Phinehas
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Hey! Circular reasoning! Well, there was a pretty large divergence that looked like a tangent locally; but, globally, it came back to sit on the a priori in the end; so maybe what we're witnessing is elliptical reasoning? So, if you accept their special plea against the structure of the metaphysical, they can then upgrade their effectively zero probability to not just a non-zero probability, but a probability of one. Sophi...Science! The materialist side of the Anthropic Principle is pretty much the Chapter 13 of materialist metaphysics.LocalMinimum
May 19, 2017
May
05
May
19
19
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply