| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2011 12:53:11 PM · #276 |
| No shit. Hubris ain't pretty. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 12:59:29 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry guys. I am correct. I don't know how else to make you see it.
The proof is in the seeing. Right? When are you ever going to "see" an infinite series that never types Hamlet. When can you declare, "I've seen it with my own eyes!"? Never. You never can because the series never ends. You would have to be able to "see" to the end of infinity and that is a logical impossibility. |
Therefore, a cow will eventually jump over the moon. Idiot. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:00:20 PM · #278 |
Does this mean that, given an infinite number of iterations, every conceivable universe must happen? So not only is there one where your god thing exists as you previously described, there's also, incontrovertibly, going to exist a universe where you are your male child's son, your daughter's spouse, and your wife's brother, each of you at the age you are right now? Given an infinite number of iterations of universes, and an infinite number of possible combinations of particles, it must be possible.
On other hand, just because you can articulate it, maybe that doesn't necessarily mean it must eventually occur. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:05:40 PM · #279 |
Jason, you can't win this argument. You're not right. You seem to have a flawed understanding of the nature of "infinity", and changing definitions/axioms to suit your conclusion isn't the same as being right.
Infinity's a mathematical concept, a necessary conceit; there's nothing "real" about it, and you're trying to make it carry freight it was never intended to load.
R. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:11:51 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
you're trying to make it carry freight it was never intended to load. |
Heh, cool expression. Never heard that one before. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:20:39 PM · #281 |
| Oh for fuck's sake. You guys are a bunch of school children. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:23:03 PM · #282 |
So Louis. you are reading Greene. His conclusions from chapter one are incorrect? Why and how?
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 13:27:01. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:25:14 PM · #283 |
I was going to make some joke about it not mattering how many times we try to explain this, the probability of Jason getting it remains the same - but I do honestly think that this does a disservice to him. Despite his last post, I do believe that he is trying to understand. But mixing infinity with statistics is difficult.
I do want to point out that we are confusing a few things along the way here. I don't think that Jason would argue that given an infinite number of tries that a cow will successfully jump over the moon (correct me if I'm wrong, Jason). The probability of that is 0 and will always be 0.
The difficulty comes when considering events with extremely low but still very real probabilities (such as Shannon's quarter and box turtle). It is an easy logical trap to fall into thinking that given enough attempts, such a low probability event will eventually occur. However, it is still a very low-probability event no matter how many times we try. It's just as wrong to say that it won't happen, though (that the probability is 0). That would require the probability to diminish over time which it doesn't. The probability remains the same (miniscule) no matter how few or how many times it is tried. In a practical sense, we can say that it won't happen, because given the small probability we will most likely be correct. However, in a purely mathematical sense, we must concede that it could happen. But that does not mean that it must happen given enough tries. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:31:54 PM · #284 |
Sorry, I'm clearly not smart enough to parse anything. I'd embarrass myself answering, obviously. You are the undisputed winner here. I'm so sorry I ever brought my own ideas into the conversation.
But I will say this: ;) I assume you're talking about "The Hidden Reality". I haven't started the book properly yet. I'm only on page twenty (I have six novels and three books of short stories to read first). But chapter one is a short summary of the book, so I'm not sure what conclusion you think he's made in those nine pages that supports your idea that you could be your son's son somewhere out there. I haven't read anything yet that supports the idea that probabilities vanish in the face of infinite iterations.
Er.. that probabilities increase, that is.
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 13:38:02. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:34:24 PM · #285 |
| Tell you what: you cite chapter and page, I'll look it up, and see if I agree with your interpretation. Since I'm on "the other side", maybe it would be a fun experiment. Maybe it would be of benefit to those who don't have the book handy. Why Brian Greene is a sudden ultimate authority for you now is vexing, though, since you've previously done nothing but pooh-pooh the idea of multiverses. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:41:24 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Why Brian Greene is a sudden ultimate authority for you now is vexing, though, since you've previously done nothing but pooh-pooh the idea of multiverses. |
Maybe, like with the Bible, one gets to cite only those parts which support one's position, and ignore those parts which contradict it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:56:08 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
People win the Lotto 6/49 by randomly matching six numbers between zero and 49. The odds are very high, but it happens all the time... |
Yes, but playing the same numbers over and over again are no guarantee of winning. |
I don't see why not. But I'm not going to live a megagazillion years, so for now I'm going to have to work for a living. :-( |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 01:57:55 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh for fuck's sake. You guys are a bunch of school children. |
I thought it was impossible to annoy Achoo! Now he's failed his mission and is going to Hell. :-( |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:03:57 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
People win the Lotto 6/49 by randomly matching six numbers between zero and 49. The odds are very high, but it happens all the time... |
Yes, but playing the same numbers over and over again are no guarantee of winning. |
I don't see why not. But I'm not going to live a megagazillion years, so for now I'm going to have to work for a living. :-( |
Let's keep it simple and consider a coin toss. Let's say that I'm looking to get a heads - we know that the odds are 50/50. I toss it once and get a tails. Does that guarantee me that my next toss will be a heads? No. I toss it again and still have only a 50/50 chance of heads. I could toss it any number of times and get tails each and every time even though the odds are 50/50. The chances of that are small, but it can happen. I am never guaranteed of getting a heads. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:15:48 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
People win the Lotto 6/49 by randomly matching six numbers between zero and 49. The odds are very high, but it happens all the time... |
Yes, but playing the same numbers over and over again are no guarantee of winning. |
I don't see why not. But I'm not going to live a megagazillion years, so for now I'm going to have to work for a living. :-( |
Let's keep it simple and consider a coin toss. Let's say that I'm looking to get a heads - we know that the odds are 50/50. I toss it once and get a tails. Does that guarantee me that my next toss will be a heads? No. I toss it again and still have only a 50/50 chance of heads. I could toss it any number of times and get tails each and every time even though the odds are 50/50. The chances of that are small, but it can happen. I am never guaranteed of getting a heads. |
You're not guaranteed not to get heads either. And in reality, after many tosses it is 50/50. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:19:06 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
People win the Lotto 6/49 by randomly matching six numbers between zero and 49. The odds are very high, but it happens all the time... |
Yes, but playing the same numbers over and over again are no guarantee of winning. |
I don't see why not. But I'm not going to live a megagazillion years, so for now I'm going to have to work for a living. :-( |
Let's keep it simple and consider a coin toss. Let's say that I'm looking to get a heads - we know that the odds are 50/50. I toss it once and get a tails. Does that guarantee me that my next toss will be a heads? No. I toss it again and still have only a 50/50 chance of heads. I could toss it any number of times and get tails each and every time even though the odds are 50/50. The chances of that are small, but it can happen. I am never guaranteed of getting a heads. |
You're not guaranteed not to get heads either. And in reality, after many tosses it is 50/50. |
Probably ;) |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:24:59 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Tell you what: you cite chapter and page, I'll look it up, and see if I agree with your interpretation. Since I'm on "the other side", maybe it would be a fun experiment. Maybe it would be of benefit to those who don't have the book handy. Why Brian Greene is a sudden ultimate authority for you now is vexing, though, since you've previously done nothing but pooh-pooh the idea of multiverses. |
Yes, sorry. It was chapter 2. Not one. The "good stuff" starts with the subsection "Reality in an Infinite Universe". I can't cite the page because kindle doesn't have page numbers (yet). |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:27:19 PM · #293 |
| And esquite is correct. If by the "cow jumps over the moon" we are referring to an "logically impossible event" then I agree the probability is always zero. The cow isn't technically a good example, because we know from Heisenburg that there is actually a finite chance that the cow dematerializes and rematerializes on the other side of the moon only to dematerialize again and rematerialize on earth. If that qualifies as "jumping", then it's actually possible... :) |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:41:30 PM · #294 |
Here's a subtle way to get at the problem.
What is 1 - 0.999999....? (where the 9 is repeated for infinity as a repeating decimal)
Mathematically, what is the answer?
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 14:41:45. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 02:48:55 PM · #295 |
The answer is a value that approaches, but never reaches, zero. For expedience sake, we tend to take the value as zero, but this only highlights the limitations of our mathematics when dealing with infinites. I know that you are looking for a static answer, and will say "what do you mean never reaches" - but that is the nature of infinity.
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 14:49:17. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 03:00:14 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
The answer is a value that approaches, but never reaches, zero. For expedience sake, we tend to take the value as zero, but this only highlights the limitations of our mathematics when dealing with infinites. I know that you are looking for a static answer, and will say "what do you mean never reaches" - but that is the nature of infinity. |
Yes! And this can be our compromise position. Will the monkey type Hamet? Yes, but you may wait an infinite amount of time for it to happen. The answer, seemingly, both says "yes" and "no" at the same time, yet reflects the truth.
Maybe we just go with good old Bertrand Russell..."If any philosopher had been asked for a definition of infinity, he might have produced some unintelligible rigmarole, but he would certainly not have been able to give a definition that had any meaning at all." |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 03:03:40 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If by the "cow jumps over the moon" we are referring to an "logically impossible event" then I agree the probability is always zero. The cow isn't technically a good example, because we know from Heisenburg that there is actually a finite chance that the cow dematerializes and rematerializes on the other side of the moon only to dematerialize again and rematerialize on earth. If that qualifies as "jumping", then it's actually possible... :) |
If it's actually possible, then the probability is not zero and the cow example is just as valid as the monkeys. It's possible that a very large asteroid collides with the opposite side of the earth and catapults a cow over the moon, it's possible that a stray heifer wanders over an ICBM missile silo, it's possible that some future NASA experiment gone awry results in a lunar leaping bovine, etc. However, in all of these cases, the probability approaches, but never reaches, zero. "Virtually impossible" does not become any more likely given infinite opportunity. There is no practical difference between waiting an infinite amount of time for something to happen and it never happening (in a sense, trying to prove a negative).
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 15:06:48. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 03:05:33 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
The answer is a value that approaches, but never reaches, zero. For expedience sake, we tend to take the value as zero, but this only highlights the limitations of our mathematics when dealing with infinites. I know that you are looking for a static answer, and will say "what do you mean never reaches" - but that is the nature of infinity. |
Yes! And this can be our compromise position. Will the monkey type Hamet? Yes, but you may wait an infinite amount of time for it to happen. The answer, seemingly, both says "yes" and "no" at the same time, yet reflects the truth.
Maybe we just go with good old Bertrand Russell..."If any philosopher had been asked for a definition of infinity, he might have produced some unintelligible rigmarole, but he would certainly not have been able to give a definition that had any meaning at all." |
OK, but if you say that you must wait an infinite amount of time for something to happen, then can you actually say that it ever happens? Not with any certainty. |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 03:07:26 PM · #299 |
And I will counter my early post about .999... based on this: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Apparently there are proofs that .999... does equal 1 - but it's a special case as .333... < .4 |
|
|
|
02/16/2011 03:09:47 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Let's keep it simple and consider a coin toss. Let's say that I'm looking to get a heads - we know that the odds are 50/50. I toss it once and get a tails. Does that guarantee me that my next toss will be a heads? No. I toss it again and still have only a 50/50 chance of heads. I could toss it any number of times and get tails each and every time even though the odds are 50/50. The chances of that are small, but it can happen. I am never guaranteed of getting a heads. |
Not to endorse Greene, but Doc is correct on the pure math (setting aside all the practical problems such as heat death, etc.; and setting aside the pure non-scientific/non-falsifiable nature of such speculative hypotheses).
One can illustrate this by expanding on the coin-flip example:
Every time you flip the coin the odds of it landing on tails is 50/50. This probability does not change for any single flip of the coin. However, the probability that all flips of the coin will land on tails becomes increasingly small the larger the number of flips are made for any single set of flips. When the number of flips for the single set is increased to infinity, the probability that the coin will land on heads, rather than tails, at least one time reaches zero (or "arbitrarily close" to zero, as it is usually expressed). Thus, in any infinite, single set of coin flips there will be at least one flip that results in tails and at least one flip that results in heads.
Now we can move on to where it really gets weird.
Expand the infinite, single set of coin flips to an infinite set of infinite, single sets of coin flips. In the infinite, single set the probability that the set will result in all heads or all tails is zero. But in the infinite set of infinite, single sets the probability that at least one of the infinite, single sets of coin flips will result in all heads or all tails is 1. In fact, mathematically, because the set of coin-flip sets is infinite, it will result in an infinite number of sets of coin flips that are all tails and an infinite number of sets of coin flips that are all heads.
None of which makes Greene's multiverse conception any more practically probable or testable.
However, it does show why mathematics is the preferred scientific discipline for stoners.
Message edited by author 2011-02-16 15:14:08.
|
|
