Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager, If ID is wrong it was an honest mistake

Categories
Intelligent Design
Just For Fun
Philosophy
Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A scandalous documentary about Christian gamblers was released in 2012 with me listed in the credits. 🙂

The documentary is about a group of Christians, the Holy Rollers, that took the casinos for 3.5 million dollars. Myself, by comparison, I’ve accumulated a relatively paltry sum of $30,000 or so over the years. I’ve been tossed out of casinos and abused because I tried to use my brain in the casino. Casinos, like Darwinists, will say: Expelled No Intelligence Allowed!.

I took Turtle Creek Casino in Michigan for $6,000 before they illegally backroomed me. Similarly, I was forcibly escorted out of Hollywood Tunica (thankfully Hollywood got sued for $729,000 for pulling such stunts on other honest players like myself in an illegal way). My photo was then circulated to various casinos via the S.I.N. network:

American casinos refer to these local agreements they have with each other to immediately fax information on suspicious or undesirable players as a S.I.N. (Surveillance Information Network), an appropriate acronym.

I then started wearing quasi disguises and countermeasures to foil the S.I.N network and Facial Recognition Systems. My favorite quasi disguise was the pimp look. Unfortunately, my pimp persona got busted, and the casinos started circulating photos on the S.I.N. Network of me in my pimp outfit…I was walking into casinos, and they were already waiting for me. I had to call it quits…

And as somewhat documented in Lauren Sandler’s book Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement in the course of my casino adventures, I was pulled over for suspected drug trafficking which I described at UD in 2006 New Face of Evangelical Christianity

She reported that I pay my bills by playing cards. Well, I did not say that, but I did tell her over dinner that I won about $1,400 over the previous few weekends when I visited the casinos. She kidded me that it was rent money, but that was her perception, and it was nothing I said seriously.

She reported that I traveled to upstate New York for a card game after an IDEA meeting. That was true. But she missed the really juicy part of the story. After visiting the casino, I was put under arrest for 45 minutes by state troopers and border patrols for suspected drug trafficking up near Akwesasne, New York. About 8 squad cars descended on me. That was really cool. They released me after they determined I was just a harmless tourist….

Apparently the police thought I completed a drug deal at the casino. Come to think of it, some guy with a Mowhawk and lots of jewelry was at my table betting $400 a hand….

But my casino adventures pale in comparison to the accomplishment of my dear friend and mentor Michael Canjar professor of mathematics. He took Turtle Creek for $60,000 before they showed him the door. Canjar’s total winnings were around $250,000, a large portion of which was donated to charity…

Canjar was professor at a Catholic school in Detroit, and he managed to even recruit one of the nuns and other professors in his holy crusade against the evil casinos. Canjar reminds me of Father Fahey:

BOSTON — When the Rev. Joseph Fahey sat at the blackjack tables, he once said, it was “all for the greater glory of God.”

The Rev. Fahey, assistant for finance of the New England province for the Jesuit order, donated tens of thousands of dollars to his order with the help of card counting — the same skills that landed him on blacklists at casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J.

Card counting involves keeping track of the proportion of high and low cards as cards are dealt from a deck.

The Rev. Fahey died Wednesday of an apparent heart attack at the age of 65.

“Many Jesuit missions owe a great debt to him and his abilities at the card table,” said John Dunn, who worked for the Rev. Fahey at Boston College High School.

As president of the school from 1988 to 1998, he boosted its endowment by 500 percent, financing an athletic center, library and computer laboratory.

He had a doctorate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was ordained a priest in 1968, and was a teacher and administrator at Holy Cross College and Boston College.

He treated Boston College students to a lesson on card counting on the last day of each semester.

But Canjar and Fahey’s crusade against the evil casinos was out done by the crusade waged by the Holy Rollers:

Beyond the Holy Rollers there were several generations of the MIT Blackjack Team, Tommy Hyland’s Teams, Ken Uston’s Teams and others. I heard of one non-blackjack team once referred to as “punters” who supposedly made 2.5 billion, but their methods are guarded secrets…

Curiously, one skilled gambler by the name of Kevin Blackwood really likes ID:

There are many things about God and the Bible I still don’t quite comprehend, but I do believe firmly in an intelligent design behind the universe. I recommend Michael Behe’s excellent book, DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, for more information on the irreducible complexity of the universe.

How is it possible to beat a game of pure chance? It can be done if the rules of the games allow you to gain an advantage through Expectation Values (or Expected Values). The principle is known as Statistical Arbitrage.

Mathematician Blaise Pascal is considered the father of the notion of Expectation Values (or Expected Values). Pascal was a skilled gambler, and the notion of expected values was originally applied to gambling but has now found application in economics, finance, physics (particularly quantum mechanics).

Pascal is one of the most brilliant, and most tormented, figures in the history of mathematics. Forbidden by his father to study mathematics… was troubled by constant illness, including recurrent migraines and what proved to be cancer of the stomach. His various contacts with illness and death from 1646 on, and his own near death in a carriage accident late in 1654, together with the influence of a morbidly religious sister, turned him toward the Jansenist version of Catholicism. On this, his mental energies were increasingly expended.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/tales/pascal.html

The notion of expectation values has played a role in a minor scuffle over ID. See: The Law of Large Numbers vs. Keiths, Eigenstate, and my other TSZ critics and SSDD: a 22-sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins?.

So how does this apply to ID?

If ID is wrong, it was at least an honest mistake because even Dawkins will admit, the world looks designed.

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived ­ including Newton, who may have been the greatest of all ­ believed in God. But it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion of living design is so overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins
You ask the questions

But in view of expectation values, what is the better wager? Darwin or Design? To answer that question, let me make a variation of Pascal’s Wager. At a personal level, suppose one accepts ID and it turns out to be false. Suppose further that a person presumed the Intelligent Designer was God, but in the end there was no God, no ID. What is the loss? But if ID is true, and further if the Intelligent Designer is God, so much might be gained. Will you throw your soul away because of the flawed ideas of Darwin, Dennett, and Dawkins?

Even though I’m a Doubting Thomas ID-ist and creationist, despite all the pain in the world, I find it too hard to believe the universe was some mindless accident. From all that I’ve learned in the world of skillful wagering on uncertain truths (of which there are many in skilled gambling), at a personal level, as far as which wager has the most favorable expectation value, I’d take Design over Darwin any day…

Image courtesy of Salvador Cordova.
me on the Las Vegas Strip near Mandalay Bay Casino, with Luxor and Excalibur Casinos in the background

PS

What was one of the nicest experiences in my casino adventures. One that ranks highly are the intelligently designed Fountains of the Bellagio Casino set to Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody:

Comments
I really don't understand the Bayesian vs. Fisherian arguments well regarding ID, but Bayes play an important role in understanding probability distributions in blackjack. With respect to card counting, unlike coins, the presumed distribution function MUST be revised in light of observations because of conditional probability (Bayes). Current and past observations of an abundance of low and middle cards (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) implies a later abundance of higher or neutral cards (8,9,10,J,Q,K,A) in the remaining shoe. Re-estimating conditionally the change in distribution allows advantage over casinos to be gained. We don't jump immediately to the conclusion of non randomness in a shoe merely because of slight variation the presumed distribution. These short term fluctuations from expectation are predictable, but not the long term deviation from expectation with large numbers. That is one feature of the statistical arbitrage in play. Interestingly, some shuffles are non-random (either by illegal design or accident). One level of blackjack play that is a super advanced skill is shuffle tracking. Individuals or teams will memorize or track the sequences of cards and then, if the shuffle doesn't sufficiently randomize the shoe, a player can exploit that flaw. Dominic O'Brien can memorize an entire shoe consisting of 6 decks. His shuffle tracking is unreal. Before Nevada outlawed it, computers inside shoes that were activated by the players feet were used to record the sequence of cards being dealt out. When the shuffle was performed there was some non-randomness left, and the player would again input the cards into the shoe computer as the next set of cards were dealt. The computer simultaneously recorded the new set of cards and alerted the player via vibration when to raise or lower his bets. Dastardly wonderful. :twisted: That had to be one of the most ingenious attacks on a casino ever conceived. Claude Shannon with Ed Throp tried to do similar feats with non random roulette wheels. For those that love Bayes theorems, I suppose blackjack ought to be fascinating. Here is info on the non-random shuffle tracking shoe computers: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/taftint.htmlscordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Mark, Thank you very very much for your response to my question. It was enlightening. Thank you also for your kind words. I appreciate your participation in my discussions. Salscordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Of course that isn’t so; if it were, then microevolution wouldn’t be possible. Surely you don’t deny the reality of microevolution, do you?
Of course I don't deny micro evolution. The creationist blyth pioneer natural selection before Darwin, and Darwin plagiarized and distorted Blyth's work.. That said, blind cavefish are a good example of fitness function at work. Destroying function, not creating. I'm not so sure closer scrutiny of such matters will show that we have blind watchmaker instead of blind watch breakers. Further, mass extinction, slow extinction, mutational meltdown are examples where the evolutionary algorithm stops in nature. So I could show you in nature: 1. the negative fitness function 2. the cessation of the fitness function 3. the meltdown of fitness in principle (like Muller's ratchet) The probability of extreme rube-goldberg functionality evolving is dubious. I've been trying to formulate testable hypotheses for field observation to show death of the fittest. That's the way to settle this debate eventually -- in the field, not on the internet. Salscordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Alan,
I see Keith suggests Monod is being quote-mined.
Not deliberately, necessarily, but his intended meaning is much clearer in context.keiths
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Just noticed this from Sal
If its not too personal, and because I want to understand, not condemn, if you believe there is no God, why spend time debating ID proponents? For myself, if I believed there was no God, I’d probably be out there partying or something more enjoyable than the shouting matches on the net, spending time arguing with people (ID proponents and creationists) who are presumably deluded.
Good question! I often think I should spend time doing something more constructive but it is fun and slightly addictive. I find the arguments for ID intellectually interesting – much more so than the arguments for astrology. I am convinced they are faulty, but not obviously so, and it is interesting to understand why. Also it is interesting to study online debate – how people behave in ways they would never contemplate were they face to face. Finally there is an element among many IDists here I find slightly threatening and maybe I can contribute a little bit by publically confronting it from time to time. It is not actually to do with ID. I am concerned about the absolute certainty that many in this community have that their religion means that they know what is morally correct. In my view the very worst of the things to happen in this world have arisen from people who felt they had discovered some principle or other which means they know what is right. The principle is not necessarily religious – communism was another such principle, so was the French revolution. It is particularly dangerous when it is mixed with a fear that others are threatening that certainty. I absolutely don’t include you in this. You seem very able to think pragmatically and for yourself. I am not very good at this. Lizzie is brilliant. Unfailingly polite, takes (almost) everyone seriously, – yet clear, logical and determined in making her case. Just by being a model debater I suspect she is winning over many lurkers.Mark Frank
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Ah, I'm assuming your reading of de Duve and Monod is correct. I see Keith suggests Monod is being quote-mined.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Are de Duve and Monod wrong in asserting that chance is responsible for evolution?
Yes. Evolutionary theory is composed of two elements that act reiteratively. There is the generation of new genetic variation which is (in my view) completely random (though there is room for a theist to propose that the randomness is apparent bot really being guided) and the selection element where each generation of a population is tested in the lab of the niche environment and the better adapted individuals are more likely to produce more offspring. I think of it as environmental design.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Barb, It depends on the definition you use. To me, "pure chance" in the context of evolution means "pure randomness", and by that definition, evolution is far more than pure chance. If you use the phrase "by chance" to mean "not by design", then of course unguided evolution is a chance occurrence under that definition. De Duve was using chance in the latter sense, as can be seen by considering his statement along with the question that prompted it:
According to science writer Malcolm W. Browne, when de Duve was asked whether “some guiding hand” was needed for the process, he responded,
The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects.
Monod is using "chance" in the first sense, but you have misinterpreted his statement. He does not say that evolution is nothing but chance; he says that chance is at the root of evolution, which is a very different meaning. This is clear if you read Monod's statement in context:
We call these events [mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...
keiths
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
CSI exists regardless of what produced it and EAs are an example of Intelligent Design Evolution.Joe
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
computerist, Sal's question was:
Why can’t evolutionary algorithms solve passwords of any non-trivial length?
He is clearly talking about EAs in which the fitness function gives no indication other than "hit" or "miss". If we allow fitness functions of the kind you describe, then we are no longer cracking passwords, and Sal's question would no longer be correct. The fitness function you describe is more like Dawkins' Weasel than a password cracker. Your choice of target string acknowledges this.
But such a fitness function is too “broad” to know whether FCSI is actually being produced and sustained or whether its just running an infinite loop and wasting CPU cycles...
If you're using 'FCSI' to mean something like Dembski's CSI, then no EA or Darwinian process can produce it by definition. It's a circular argument: define CSI to exclude Darwinian processes, and then assert that CSI indicates that something didn't evolve! If you're using 'FCSI' in a non-circular way, then your statement misses the point. The EA doesn't "care" whether it's producing 'FCSI'. It only cares about whether the fitness is increasing. Observers can determine whether 'FCSI' is being produced if you supply them with a tractable definition and method for measuring it.keiths
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Alan sez:
It happens to be the only theory that fits the facts.
It can't even muster a testable hypothesis. That alone means you are full of it, Alan. And it doesn't make any predictions either.Joe
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Regarding those who believe that evolutionary theory is not a theory of pure chance: The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence., philosopher Christian de Duve (http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Christian_De_Duve) Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the supendous edifice of evolution." (Jacques L. Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology, New York, Vintage Books, 1972, pages 112, 180). Are de Duve and Monod wrong in asserting that chance is responsible for evolution?Barb
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But, as evolutionary theory is not a theory of pure chance, ...
Just repeating your bald assertion doesn't make it so.Joe
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
The reason to reject darwinism is there isn't any evidence tat darwinian processes can construct anything.Joe
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Keiths@19 is correct but also wrong if the password was known beforehand and specified as the target ie: "ME_THINKS_THIS_IS_THE_PASSWORD123_zZ". Now apply a fitness function that counts the character proximity of the current random string at the current iteration relative to the target. GA's work with "target relativity" per generation. Now ofcourse a pre-specified target is a useless demonstration of the Darwinian account (and useless in general for solving engineering problems) which is why an on-the-fly target is usually used (ie: if consume more memory and/or CPU... translates into Darwinian evolutionary context as to consume more resources and flourish at a faster rate). But such a fitness function is too "broad" to know whether FCSI is actually being produced and sustained or whether its just running an infinite loop and wasting CPU cycles (as per the above defined fitness function). It is also as far as I can tell just as useless apart from the trivial possible optimization that can result and not of new significant/unique function.computerist
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Sal,
It does have to do with NFL...
That would be more persuasive if you could explain why it has anything to do with NFL.
...and even if not it still poses reasons to reject Darwinism. Darwinism in this case is clearly no better than chance.
It would be a reason to reject "Darwinism" in nature only if you could show that all fitness functions in nature are as uninformative as the fitness function in your password example. Of course that isn't so; if it were, then microevolution wouldn't be possible. Surely you don't deny the reality of microevolution, do you?
As pointed out appropriate fitness may be one of other problems such as population resources. Still think Darwinism is a good bet?
Your statement is unclear, but why should it be a problem for Darwinism if resource dependence factors into the fitness functions?
Btw, what’s the payoff if Darwinism is right[?]
That's the wrong question. It's not up to us. The choice is whether we accept Darwinism.
You’re invited to state what you gain by arguing in favor of Darwin and what you gain if Darwin is right.
What I gain if Darwin is right is irrelevant. He's either right or wrong on any given point. The real question is "What do I gain by pursuing the truth?" See below.
In a meaningless world, does truth really have value over delusion?
Enormous value, across all aspects of life. As just one small example: the next time you're really thirsty, ask yourself whether the truth of how to obtain water has any value to you.keiths
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Thanks for responding Alan. I appreciate hearing what motivate you guys.scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
You’re invited to state what you gain by arguing in favour of Darwin and what you gain if Darwin is right.
Hope that was a general invitation and not just for Keith. I'm not arguing in favour of Darwinism (or presuming you mean the current raft of evolutionary theories). It happens to be the only theory that fits the facts. If it turned out to be wrong, then it would need to be modified or abandoned. If there were an alternative theory that better fitted the data and made more accurate predictions that could be confirmed by experiment, there is no doubt it would be quickly adopted. As yet there is no competing theory.
In a meaningless world, does truth really have value over delusion?
I personally would prefer to have at least the partial or provisional truth to delusion. Whether the world is meaningless or not is an open question. Carpe diem is my motto. When you only have one shy at the coconut, you better make it count.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
It does have to do with NFL and even if not it still poses reasons to reject Darwinism. Darwinism in this case is clearly no better than chance. As pointed out appropriate fitness may be one of other problems such as population resources. Still think Darwinism is a good bet? Btw, what's the payoff if Darwinism is right At least Mark Frank posed a counter question I could not answer. I admitted it. You're invited to state what you gain by arguing in favor of Darwin and what you gain if Darwin is right. In a meaningless world, does truth really have value over delusion?scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Sal,
Why can’t evolutionary algorithms solve passwords of any non-trivial length? No Free Lunch.
It has nothing to do with NFL. The reason evolutionary algorithms are bad password solvers is that the fitness function gives them no information to indicate when they are getting close to a solution (a correct password). The fitness function is essentially a binary function that returns '1' if you get the password exactly right and '0' otherwise. It doesn't guide you toward a solution; it just tells you when you happen to get lucky and hit the password on the nose.keiths
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Oops "catalytic activity of novel proteins".Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Biology is rich with password type systems such as protein binding.
Poor analogy, as is lock and key. I would agree if you said binding affinity is paramount in biological systems but binding affinity is not all-or-nothing. Any catalytic activity is better than none.
Evolutionary algorithms solve only a limited set of problems. Darwinists falsely assume biology fits into that limited set of problems that can be solved by evolution.
Evolutionary processes by their nature find alternative ("better") solutions close to the current combination of alleles. You and nobody else can say anything about the richness of as-yet-unsearched space, such as catalytic activity of proteins.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Alan, Why can't evolutionary algorithms solve passwords of any non-trivial length? No Free Lunch. Biology is rich with password type systems such as protein binding. Evolutionary algorithms solve only a limited set of problems. Darwinists falsely assume biology fits into that limited set of problems that can be solved by evolution. That's false.scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
PS let me quote Wesley Elsberry:
Dembski's invocation of Wolpert and Macready's "No Free Lunch" theorem suffers from the same error as his last use of it in "Explaining Specified Complexity". Wolpert and Macready's results are about comparative efficiency, not essential capacity. As mentioned before, Wolpert and Macready treat all algorithms as having the capacity to solve the problem at hand on every possible cost function for that problem. The example that they give of hill-descending algorithms solving hill-climbing problems illustrates this point nicely. One can characterize the fitness functions which cause some evolutionary algorithm to become less efficient than other algorithms or blind search: the fitness function is "misleading". That is, nearby candidate solutions in genetic space map to worse-performing points when evaluated by the fitness function, and thus away from the solution that would terminate the search. What Dembski needs to do is show that biological genetics instantiates such a situation. Unfortunately for Dembski, the diversity of variants of proteins which perform the same functions would tend to indicate that, in general, that the biological fitness functions do not match the relevant features of misleading cost functions.
hereAlan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
But the no free lunch theorems say evolutionary theory should perform no better than the chance hypothesis
But, as evolutionary theory is not a theory of pure chance, the comparison is not valid. Wolpert does not think Demski's use of his NFL is at all rigorous, particularly when he relies on some of the "No-Free-Lunch (NFL) theorems" of the geometry of induction.Alan Fox
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Here is a common saying in the casino:
What's the difference between praying in church and praying in a casino? When you pray in a casino, you really mean it!
scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
F/N (footnote): The usual expression tracing to Darwin is chance variation plus differential reproductive success leads to descent with modification: CV + DRS --> DWM It is patent that chance is envisioned as incrementally writing the software that controls the hardware of life, step by incremental step in a branching tree pattern to form the world of life. Differential reproductive success is a subtraction of varieties less fit or less lucky, so it does not add info. The source of info left to us is chance variation. Worse, the model implies that:
1 --> the world of life sits in a vast continent of functional forms 2 --> forms that are incrementally traversible in a geologically and paleontologically plausible time 3 --> by populations of plausible size in light of 4 --> reasonable incidence of variations and 5 --> reasonable population genetics times to fix incremental change.
Not a single one of these is reasonable. Multipart function depending on well matched properly arranged and coupled parts comes in narrow islands in the space of possible configs. Complex code that works does not get written incrementally. The pop sizes and times to fix increments on the models explode the time required to say make a whale out of a cow-like creature or the like. And, at the root of the tree of life, there is simply no reasonable basis for a chance driven blind search of a pond or the like ending up in a viable cell based life form, no matter what intermediate steps are imagined. And that is before we get to the question of empirical evidence, which underscores the point. no roots, no shoots, branches, twigs or leaves. No wonder the pro-darwin essay challenge sits unanswered after nine months. KFkairosfocus
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But evolutionary theory is not a theory of pure chance.
Sure it is. Natural selection just eliminates the weak and defincient. Despite what evos say that isn't anything that would turn chance into anything else.Joe
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
But evolutionary theory is not a theory of pure chance.
But the no free lunch theorems say evolutionary theory should perform no better than the chance hypothesis, and neutral theory says it's moot anyway since there aren't enough population resources relative to genome size for selection to influence much of the genome anyway... Further, evolutionary algorithms that supposedly model evolution don't encapsulate the legitimate issues I raised in Death of the Fittest. If they did, we might not be having this conversation...scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Thanks for joining the conversation Kairos Focus. From your thread I cross posted this comment: Of coin tosses, expectation...
You’ve failed to comprehend that the probability of flipping all heads is tiny, but not zero.
I think everyone accepts that. A better way of framing the argument is whether its an outcome worth betting on. From a gambling stand point, one would wager on the chance outcome unless the payoff justified it, and even then, that presumes one will have enough trials of this game to rely on the convergence to expectation. For example, in casino gambling, just because a gambler has a 3% advantage over the house in a bet, it is ill advised he wager his life savings, and the case of 500 coins it’s even more true because the “casino” the “house” has a 1 – [(2^500-1)/(2^500)] = 99.9999999999999999999999…..% edge over the player. It’s not a favorable wager. There is actually a whole discipline of Kelly fraction and risk management to size ones wagers to avoid gambler’s ruin but that a whole nother topic! And curiously, in the case of Darwinian evolution, there isn’t any payoff anyway if the chance hypothesis (or the Darwinian variation thereof) is correct. On a philosophical grounds and at a personal level, it’s dubious that so many people stake their lives and reputations on Darwinian evolution being correct. There is no payoff, imho. The atheist agnostic Bertrand Russell said it well:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
I’m grateful Darwinists show up and debate us. It’s beneficial to ID proponents that we have our ideas vetted, but what benefit is it to Darwinists to debate us. Why are the stakes so big for you guys as if your souls depended on it. For many ID proponents, the stake are high in that some believe in eternal life and God, but given the payoff is zero for Darwinists at the personal level if Darwin was right, why waste trying to disprove ID. It is not a rational wager, imho. You’re time in otherwords, doesn’t seem well invested in this debate unless of course you really enjoy the tortures of shouting matches.
Correction, I think the house edge formula should be [1 – [(2^500-1)/(2^500)]] - [(2^500-1)/(2^500)] = 99.9999999999999999999999…..% which given the large numbers is almost a moot point!scordova
June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply