On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> Shane Mage wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>> Stephen Jay Gould suggests... that "Higher" life forms, far
>>> from being the logical or necessary emergence from life as it
>>> existed in the first billion years or so, were in fact highly
>>> unlikely. That we find ourselves here is the result of
>>> innumerable contingencies, none of which had a high probability.
>> The dogmatism of Darwinists like Gould is amazing. Knowing
>> nothing except received opinion about conditions in the
>> prehistoric past he claimed to know the "probability" of
>> "innumerable" events, none of which he, or anyone else, knows the
>> slightest bit about. It seems he didn't even realize that all
>> past macroscopic (non-quantum) events, known and unknown, are
>> known (because they took place) to have been 100% certain.
>> Probability is an *ex ante*, not an *ex post* category. Except
>> *perhaps* at the quantum level probability expresses our
>> uncertainty, not anything about nature. Le Bon Dieu does not play
>> dice with the universe.
>
> No, you're missing Gould's point. The thought experiment involves
> rewinding history and estimating the "ex ante" probability of
> getting the same result in alternate timelines 2 through n...
But given his complete ignorance of initial conditions for his "experiment," his estimates of *ex ante* probability have to be completely arbitrary.
> ...From the standpoint of probability theory, it is highly unlikely
> that a long string of random events would occur exactly the same way
> more than once. Simple example: if you flip 5 heads in a row with a
> fair coin, next time you flip a coin 5 times you are very, very
> unlikely to see 5 heads in a row...
But if you flip that fair coin long enough, you are certain to get virtually half the throws as heads, virtually half as tails. That 50/50 outcome is all we know when we look at the final "winnings" of our bets. The exact sequence of heads and tails is irrelevant.
> ...Thus it is almost certain that a "rewind" of history would lead
> to different outcomes, simply because random events would "break" in
> different ways in each timeline...
But, as pointed out, the "differences" in final result would be
infinitesimal. The outcome is absolutely *lawful*.
>
> ...I agree that this probability argument is moot if you believe
> that there is an intelligent deity guiding the development of the
> universe. (I'm not sure if the last sentence of your post is
> serious or facetious.)
No deity need have anything to do with it, and a deity *external* to nature cannot conceivably have anything to do with it. All that is required is the proposition that the ultimate course of events takes form in the determining context of formal natural law. Einstein's phrase was an idiomatic expression of this (Platonic) concept. Sheldrake's suggestion of a "morphogenetic field" is another (nonmathematical) expression of that concept.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos