Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:30:29 GMT
steve eric cisna wrote:
>>
>> In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
>> >
>> >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
>> >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
>> >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>>
>
>[...] I'm sure that the printing
>press story does have about the same possibility as the earth exactly as
>it is being formed. But the way it is now is just one of many
>possibilities. It's just the one that happened.
This is known as the anthropic principle. Another way of looking at
it is to explode a printing press and see what comes out. It won't
be Webster's dictionary, but it will be something. Take the result,
hold it in your hand, and ask yourself "What is the probability of the
exploding printing press giving exactly what I'm holding in my hand?".
The answer is, of course, negligibly close to zero. So, by this science
book's argument, what you're holding in your hand cannot therefore exist.
The anthropic principle is a powerful argument, but it is easy to
abuse it. Physicists -- I am reading this from sci.physics -- are often
asking "Why is such-and-such the way it is?". The anthropic principle
is one way to answer the question (i.e. "if such-and-such weren't, then
we wouldn't be around to ask the question"), but there is often some
deeper connection that is waiting to be discovered.
BTW, I have no feel for the absolute probability of an exploding
printing press producing Webster's dictionary, or for the creation of
the earth, so I can't judge the so-called science book's claim. However,
the book is implicitly asking the wrong question. The question is not
what is the total probability of the earth being created from some dead
matter. The correct question is, given the earth exists, what is the
conditional probability that it was created from some dead matter (just
what is "dead matter", anyway?). The answer to the first question is
very small, whereas the answer to the second is very large.
- Gordon
--
#include
Gordon Long | email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE |
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland) |
Subject: Re: World's second most beautiful syllogism
From: Mike Herauf
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:57:26 -0800
> To quote Dr. Foakes-Jackson (1855-1941) of Cambridge ..."It's no use
> trying to be clever, we are *all* clever here. Just try to be kind."
>
> Darla
> ---who hereby thanks her brave champions, both public and private.
Hooray for you Darla. You know now, that you are damned to the river
Styx or something like that now, don't you? Archie Pootonium is quite a
(dishwasher) character. He hates anyone who disagrees with his
"theories", which are obviously idiotic, and have been proven so. They
carry no weight or importance here.
However, A.P. is quite intelligent. If you get him to coverse on a
worthwhile subject, he can be quite interesting and resourceful.
As far as his attacks upon you, forget them.
Mike
P.S.
Welcome to the club
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: Hardy Hulley
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:18:06 +0200
Hardy:
>> Your very reply to Anton's post is yet further evidence of your
>> dishonesty. You addressed only his claim about "inveterate liars", but
>> refused to engage his demonstration of why your initial claim about
>> logical positivism was wrong.
moggin:
> Half-right.
Tell it to the marines - I'm sure they care.
> Anton has a habit of making groundless attacks, like
> the above. In this instance, he even managed to attribute one of his
> own claims to me, and then attack me for it. That disinclined me
> to pursue the conversation any further, especially since I already
> supplied exactly what Anton was demanding; that is, an explanation
> of my statement about logical positivism.
Your explanation was dissimulation informed of a misapprehension of the
logical positivist programme, aggravated by a stubborn resistance to
reason, and totally oblivious to its own internal inconsistency. If I
know you at all, however, none of these minor considerations should
hinder you from sticking to it.
> But I wasn't dishonest [blah blah]
In the matter of your dishonesty, enough evidence has been amassed to
ensure the verdict. Your only hope now lies in pleading stupidity.
Cheers,
Hardy
Subject: Re: SALINGER: "THE FBI IS NOW AFTER ME."
From: Stephen La Joie
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:56:51 GMT
Stephen Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> The military *may* (and I question this) be inclined to hide such an error, but
"May"? It seems with the military, cover up is SOP.
> not the independant and uninvolved NTSB, the FAA, nor FBI. And certainly not the ^^^^ ^^^
ROTFL!!!
I was following you up until this, where you blew your credibility out of the
water. Anyone who reads the papers knows that there is a big FBI coverup scandle
going on over Ruby Ridge. They destroyed evidence about what really went on there
and told a pack of lies about it. Some agents are being found guilt there. And then
you say that the FBI is not inclinded to hide such an error? The FBI's credibility
is greatly tarnished. They aren't exactly smelling like a rose with the White
House FBI files, either.
As for the NTSB, they are WAY more political than the FAA, much more responsive
to political pressure.
I don't know what happened to Flight 800. Not a clue. I'm not saying that they
were shot down by a navy missle, I'm just making fun of your blind faith in the
honesty of the government. It's absolutly child like.
Subject: Re: 2nd law of thermo -PRETENTIOUS!
From: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Date: 14 Nov 1996 14:50:21 GMT
Wayne Delia (redsox3@ibm.net) wrote:
: In <3286DD62.775C@eurocontrol.fr>, Steve Jones - JON writes:
: >Small minds can never envisage change, they cling to the "now"
: >as perfect. If you want a modern example, just look at IBMs latest
: >assertion that the year 2000 won't be a problem for them.
: On behalf of the company that employs me, I can assure you that the year 2000
: won't be a problem for IBM. It will, however, be a problem for anyone else who
: uses IBM hardware and software... wait a minute... IBM's the biggest customer of
: IBM hardware and software! Oh shit...
: (Actually, and officially, I do not presume to speak for the brilliant upper-level
: management of the I.B.M. Corporation, in whom I have the utmost confidence, as
: far as they know.)
: I once worked on a PL/I program in 1993 along with a good friend who had 25
: years experience with IBM, which required modifying a sorting routine based on a
: date field in the format YY/MM/DD. I pointed out that we needed to take the
: turn of the century into account, but my friend said not to worry about it -
: because he'd be retired by then. The scary part is he was dead serious.
...And you all thought "Dilbert" was just a comic strip...
--
******************************
Czar
EAC Minister-without-portfolio
******************************
Me fail English?
That's unpossible!
- Ralph Wiggum
******************************