Universal Probabilty Bound?

[Serious]

Oh… BTW – just to keep being a math geek…

Wonderful I see your “math geek” and raise you a “math prof” who has been lecturing probability theory for many years.

Dembski proposes 10e-150 as the threshold for crossing from probabilistic analysis to looking for some other reason.

Yes, and that is the problem. In that blackjack shoe the probability of that particular sequence is 10[sup]-1248[/sup] (has 1248 zeros after the decimal point), which cannot even be compared to Dembki’s number (with it measly 150 zeros). Do you really think that this substantiates the existence of a “card-genie”?

In the example of the roulette table, then, that means that, the first 498 times it comes up “red” in a row, you think “it could happen this way…” but with that 499th time comes around, and it’s red again, you start thinking “maybe there’s a better explanation…”!

No, there is no reason for that. Every roulette wheel is balanced very meticulously, because the bank is aware that the players would notice the imbalance real fast, and would exploit it. The only advantage for the bank is to play a clean game and to have the “zero” which skews the percentage in the bank’s favor. The advantage is about 2.7% which is sufficient.

But let’s have fun with the roulette wheel for a second. Since the game was conceived, there were at least 1 million games played (probably a lot more). In evevy game one number came out. The actual sequence, which occurred had a probability of 1/36[sup]-1000000[/sup] (it has about 1.55 million zeros after the decimal point) which number is so small that it cannot even be imagined. Yet, that sequence has happened. Clearly the “roulette-genie” in action - if one takes Dumbski seriously. (The typo was accidental, but since it is so appropriate, I left it in )

 

[Gorgias]

Wonderful I see your “math geek” and raise you a “math prof” who has been lecturing probability theory for many years.

LOL… ok – forewarned is forearmed!

Yes, and that is the problem. In that blackjack shoe the probability of that particular sequence is 10[sup]-1248[/sup] (has 1248 zeros after the decimal point), which cannot even be compared to Dembki’s number (with it measly 150 zeros). Do you really think that this substantiates the existence of a “card-genie”?

Hmm… i was thinking that the number would be more like 10e390 sequences: with 52*4 cards, you have 208! possible sequences (and just looking at that, I’m realizing that I’m counting each card as unique – actually, it isn’t: when the Ace of Spades comes up, I don’t care which deck it’s from…).

I was considering that, with 16 aces and 64 tens (grr… another error, i think – I was originally using 32 as the number of tens. grf.), there are 10e102 ways for me to hit 16 blackjacks in a row from that shoe. That means it’s a 1-in-10e288 chance of me achieving that outcome, no? We’re in the range of the UPB, then…

No, there is no reason for that. Every roulette wheel is balanced very meticulously, because the bank is aware that the players would notice the imbalance real fast, and would exploit it. The only advantage for the bank is to play a clean game and to have the “zero” which skews the percentage in the bank’s favor. The advantage is about 2.7% which is sufficient.

Whoops! Stop right there! You’ve added a condition based on prior knowledge to the example, which invalidates it! Worse yet, your condition speaks to design! Yes, you’ve just posited that you know that it’s a probability issue, based on your knowledge of the design intent and implementation of that design in the game! Once you’ve gone there, we’re playing for the same team – we both act out of a presumption of knowledge of the meaning inherent in the design of the system!

But let’s have fun with the roulette wheel for a second. Since the game was conceived, there were at least 1 million games played (probably a lot more). In evevy game one number came out. The actual sequence, which occurred had a probability of 1/36[sup]-1000000[/sup] (it has about 1.55 million zeros after the decimal point) which number is so small that it cannot even be imagined. Yet, that sequence has happened. Clearly the “roulette-genie” in action - if one takes Dumbski seriously. (The typo was accidental, but since it is so appropriate, I left it in )

Yes, an outcome realized is an outcome realized. We’re not debating that fact. And, I’m not claiming that God had his hand on every roulette wheel since the beginning of the game. (That’s a rather weak trivialization of the argument.) However, the argument doesn’t claim that a sequence of n trials doesn’t lead to n outcomes. That’s just silly.

Let’s go back to the roulette wheel. Without any a priori assumptions about the casino or the wheel itself, you see “red” come up 498 times (and, since we’re talking about outcomes, not just probabilities, there’s a guy at the table who’s betting “red” and gaining a huge stack of chips). Now, rationally speaking, what do you say to yourself? “I’m going to bet red – there’s something afoot here”? or “I’m betting black – there odds against a 499th red are astronomical!”? or “It doesn’t matter what I bet – the next roll will be either red or black, with nearly 50% probability”?

 

[Serious]

Hmm… i was thinking that the number would be more like 10e390 sequences: with 52*4 cards, you have 208! possible sequences (and just looking at that, I’m realizing that I’m counting each card as unique – actually, it isn’t: when the Ace of Spades comes up, I don’t care which deck it’s from…).

That is taken into account in the 52![sup]4[/sup] in the divisor. The number of possible sequences is (208!)/(52!)[sup]4[/sup] (approximately 10[sup]-1248[/sup]). We only look a the ace of spades, no matter which deck it comes from.

I was considering that, with 16 aces and 64 tens (grr… another error, i think – I was originally using 32 as the number of tens. grf.), there are 10e102 ways for me to hit 16 blackjacks in a row from that shoe. That means it’s a 1-in-10e288 chance of me achieving that outcome, no? We’re in the range of the UPB, then…

No, since your calculations are incorrect. But that hardly matters. There are 10[sup]1248[/sup] possible card sequences. Each one is equally probable. The probability of any one of them is 10[sup]-1248[/sup]. Yet, one of them actually happens. And there is no reason to postulate a “card-genie”.

Whoops! Stop right there! You’ve added a condition based on prior knowledge to the example, which invalidates it! Worse yet, your condition speaks to design! Yes, you’ve just posited that you know that it’s a probability issue, based on your knowledge of the design intent and implementation of that design in the game! Once you’ve gone there, we’re playing for the same team – we both act out of a presumption of knowledge of the meaning inherent in the design of the system!

Nonsense. The real-life arrangement simply ensures that the experiment is “honest”, that there is no “skewing” going on. If there would be a “crooked” roulette wheel, that would be the “design”, not the elimination of the “trickery”.

Yes, an outcome realized is an outcome realized. We’re not debating that fact. And, I’m not claiming that God had his hand on every roulette wheel since the beginning of the game. (That’s a rather weak trivialization of the argument.) However, the argument doesn’t claim that a sequence of n trials doesn’t lead to n outcomes. That’s just silly.

But that is not what Dembski says. The odds against that particluar sequence of numbers are not even astronomical (it is much worse that that). The number of 36[sup]1000000[/sup] is so large that there is no real world equivalent to it. If the whole visible universe would be stuffed with neutrons without any space in between, the number of these neutrons would be far less than the number above.

Let’s go back to the roulette wheel. Without any a priori assumptions about the casino or the wheel itself, you see “red” come up 498 times (and, since we’re talking about outcomes, not just probabilities, there’s a guy at the table who’s betting “red” and gaining a huge stack of chips).

Psychologically speaking, the exact opposite would happen. Everyone would keep betting black - precisely because they think that the “run of reds” must stop.

Now, rationally speaking, what do you say to yourself? “I’m going to bet red – there’s something afoot here”? or “I’m betting black – there odds against a 499th red are astronomical!”? or “It doesn’t matter what I bet – the next roll will be either red or black, with nearly 50% probability”?

The last one: “It doesn’t matter what I bet – the next roll will be either red or black, with nearly 50% probability” - since the roulette wheel still does not have a memory. Only the mathematically untrained think that it does.

 

[Gorgias]

Nonsense. The real-life arrangement simply ensures that the experiment is “honest”, that there is no “skewing” going on. If there would be a “crooked” roulette wheel, that would be the “design”, not the elimination of the “trickery”.

That’s just it, though – the real-life example is good, as far as it goes, but it fails to be descriptive precisely because we have a priori knowledge about the design! In fact, the assertion of a “skew” is exactly what’s at play here! The question is: is the universe an honest roulette table, at which any combination of events can only be taken as a sum of probabilities, or is it a “crooked” roulette wheel, where the outcome isn’t random, but directed?

Psychologically speaking, the exact opposite would happen. Everyone would keep betting black - precisely because they think that the “run of reds” must stop.

That belies a presumption, though: people who bet black presume that the wheel is honest. (Others, I’d assert, would bet red, presuming that there’s a “fix”.)

The last one: “It doesn’t matter what I bet – the next roll will be either red or black, with nearly 50% probability” - since the roulette wheel still does not have a memory. Only the mathematically untrained think that it does.

Unfortunately, this answer, too, presumes an honest wheel. In fact, when you walk into a casino, you have a whole set of presumptions built up, regarding the fairness of the games. Let’s play a thought experiment: if you walk into a casino, go to the roulette wheel, and see “red” come up 499 times, what do you think? (“gee, what a fantastically improbable sequence of events that was!”…?) Now, let’s suppose you’re walking on the street, and you see that a guy has set up a roulette table and is taking bets. You see that “red” comes up 499 times. What do you think in that scenario? Improbable sequence, or rigged game?

Your answer presumes “honest table” – and, although you realize that 498 “red” games is hugely unlikely (and that 499 consecutive “red” games is slightly more unlikely), you recognize that black has as good a chance on the next roll as red. However, I’m thinking that, when you come across the game on the street – which looks as honest as the game in the casino, if you’re just looking at the wheel itself – you would think “this game must be fixed; the probabilities are just too great against this sequence!”

Now, this, I think, is a reasonable analogy. We don’t see what’s running the wheel, just the wheel itself. We have no way to judge whether the game is driven purely by chance, or if someone’s hand is guiding it. We can attempt a probabilistic approach to the game, but at some point, one would have to presume that the fix is in. I think that this is all that Dembski is saying – there has to be a point where you step back, shake your head, and say, “there must be something else going on here, besides an honest, unbiased set of probabilities”. At that point, the argument diverges from being a strictly statistically-based argument (after all, its conclusions offer consideration of telos, which is something that the statistical argument cannot approach).

 

[Serious]

The question is: is the universe an honest roulette table, at which any combination of events can only be taken as a sum of probabilities, or is it a “crooked” roulette wheel, where the outcome isn’t random, but directed?

So far there is no reason to assume that there is a “crooked” wheel in play. That is exactly what Dembski attempts to establish. And fails.

That belies a presumption, though: people who bet black presume that the wheel is honest. (Others, I’d assert, would bet red, presuming that there’s a “fix”.)

And they have an excellent reason to believe that the game is honest. That belief is supported by the fact, that the players would exploit a “rigged” game, and the casino woul go bankrupt in a very short time. Yet, again, all this is not relevant. This is just a model. The sequence, which happened, did happen. The a-priori probability was 36[sup]-1000000[/sup] which cannot be compared to Dembski’s 10[sup]-150[/sup] value. And no sane person would argue for the “roulette-genie”. Now if someone would be able to PREDICT that sequence, that would be an absolute, certain, sure-fire indication that there is some “design” happening. As they say, it is easy to be “smart” after the event took place - or hindsight is truly 20/20.

Now, this, I think, is a reasonable analogy. We don’t see what’s running the wheel, just the wheel itself. We have no way to judge whether the game is driven purely by chance, or if someone’s hand is guiding it. We can attempt a probabilistic approach to the game, but at some point, one would have to presume that the fix is in.

Why? If you have absolutely no information about the “game”, you cannot make any analysis of what is going on. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. When it comes to the roulette (or the blackjack shoe) we do have a-priori knowledge that there is no “hanky-panky” going one. The game is honest, and yet an incredibly unlikely event ACTUALLY happened. Therefore the basic assumption - namely that there is a cut-off limit where the improbable outcome makes “design” a rational option is simply nonsense.

I think that this is all that Dembski is saying – there has to be a point where you step back, shake your head, and say, “there must be something else going on here, besides an honest, unbiased set of probabilities”.

Two questions here: “why”" and “at what point”? The examples of roulette and the blackjack shoe prove that honest games produce extremely unlikely outcomes, so the “why” is already invalidated. The “at what point” of 10[sup]-150[/sup] is sheer nonsense. Dembski sucked it out from his little pinky. There is no reason to accept it.

 

[Gorgias]

That is taken into account in the 52![sup]4[/sup] in the divisor. The number of possible sequences is (208!)/(52!)[sup]4[/sup] (approximately 10[sup]-1248[/sup]). We only look a the ace of spades, no matter which deck it comes from.

No, since your calculations are incorrect. But that hardly matters. There are 10[sup]1248[/sup] possible card sequences. Each one is equally probable. The probability of any one of them is 10[sup]-1248[/sup].

OK… aside from the philosophical discussion, I’m going crazy trying to see where you get 10[sup]1248[/sup] from. It seems to me that it should be more like 10[sup]393[/sup]. Tell me where I’m going wrong, here…:

we’ve got 208 cards. Let’s presume that which deck it comes from is relevant. Then, we’ve got 208 * 207 * … * 1 = 208! possible card sequences, correct?

IIRC, one approximation for factorials is: n! ≅10[sup](sum from 1 to n of log)[/sup].

Quickly in Excel, then, I show that to be 10[sup]393.38[/sup].

So, there are roughly 10[sup]393[/sup] possible sequences of cards, not 10[sup]1024[/sup].

Having gone that far, let me continue…

The “game” here is simply trying to predict where 32 cards end up: 16 of these are the sixteen aces in the four decks, and 16 of these are the 64 cards with the value of “ten”. In each hand, I don’t care if the ace turns first or the ten turns first. So, in my first hand, I have 16 possibilities for the ace, and 64 for the ten (times 2, since order doesn’t matter). In my second, 15 and 63. Etc, etc. So, it comes down to: 2 * (16!)(64! / 48!). That’s on the order of 10[sup]41[/sup] ways to get 16 blackjacks where I want them.

so, it seems that the chance of getting my 16 blackjacks is on the order of 10[sup]41[/sup] / 10[sup]393[/sup] = 10[sup]-352[/sup].

Where are our calcs diverging? As I understand it, you’re saying that the total number of ways that 208 cards can be placed in a shoe is 10[sup]1024[/sup] …

Thanks!

G.

 

[Gorgias]

When it comes to the roulette (or the blackjack shoe) we do have a-priori knowledge that there is no “hanky-panky” going one.

The examples of roulette and the blackjack shoe prove that honest games produce extremely unlikely outcomes

OK: so your argument reduces to the assertion that “if there is no creator God, then the world is just a highly unlikely outcome”. I’ll buy that; in fact, I agree with that assertion.

However, your assertion necessarily presumes “honest game” (i.e., no design). So, what’s your basis for presuming that the game is “honest” (i.e., has no designer)? After all, to take the analogy further, all we see is the wheel – we don’t see the surroundings, so we can’t assert “this is a casino where measures are in place to prevent any shenanigans” or even “this is a road-side game where the possibility of shenanigans is greater than in a legal casino”. Therefore, we have no empirical basis for making an assumption one way or the other, don’t we?

I’m not a big fan of ID: it seems to come down to two tautologies – “if there’s no God, the universe is just a lucky crapshoot” and “if there’s a God, then God designed and created the universe”. Neither one really helps much at all. However, it seems like both sides are trying to use their premise to damage the other side’s conclusion; that’s hardly according to Hoyle…

 

[Serious]

OK… aside from the philosophical discussion, I’m going crazy trying to see where you get 10[sup]1248[/sup] from. It seems to me that it should be more like 10[sup]393[/sup]. Tell me where I’m going wrong, here…:

we’ve got 208 cards. Let’s presume that which deck it comes from is relevant. Then, we’ve got 208 * 207 * … * 1 = 208! possible card sequences, correct?

IIRC, one approximation for factorials is: n! ≅10[sup](sum from 1 to n of log)[/sup].

Well done. I made a calculation mistake.

The number of sequences is much less than 208!. It is 208! divided by 52!52!5252! - make sure that we do not distinguish the “ace of spades” (for example) based upon from which deck it comes from.
Now look at the Stirling approximation of n! here which is n! ~ sqrt(2pin)(n/e)[sup]n[/sup] or square root of (2 times ‘pi’ time ‘n’) mulipled by ‘n’ to the power of ‘n’ divided by ‘e’ to the power of ‘n’ (where ‘e’ is the number of 2.7192949259…)
Now the number of the different sequences (let’s call it X) becomes A/B, where A = sqrt(2pi208)(208/e)[sup]208[/sup] and B = (sqrt(2pi52)(52/e)[sup]52[/sup])[sup]4[/sup]
Since the sqrt(2pi208) / sqrt(2pi52)[sup]4[/sup] is dwarfed by the size of the (208/e)[sup]208[/sup] / (52/e)[sup]208[/sup] we can simplfy to say that X = (208/52)[sup]208[/sup]… which is 4[sup]208[/sup], which is 2[sup]416[/sup], which becomes (2[sup]10[/sup])[sup]41.6[/sup] which is (10[sup]3[/sup])[sup]41.6[/sup] and finally 10[sup]214[/sup] and NOT 10[sup]1248[/sup] as I said before.

Again, well done! You caught my calculation error. (Not the first one either.)

But that hardly matters for the end result. The difference is still 64 zeros or 10[sup]64[/sup] an incredibly large number.

Quickly in Excel, then, I show that to be 10[sup]393.38[/sup].

So, there are roughly 10[sup]393[/sup] possible sequences of cards, not 10[sup]1024[/sup].

Having gone that far, let me continue…

The “game” here is simply trying to predict where 32 cards end up: 16 of these are the sixteen aces in the four decks, and 16 of these are the 64 cards with the value of “ten”. In each hand, I don’t care if the ace turns first or the ten turns first. So, in my first hand, I have 16 possibilities for the ace, and 64 for the ten (times 2, since order doesn’t matter). In my second, 15 and 63. Etc, etc. So, it comes down to: 2 * (16!)(64! / 48!). That’s on the order of 10[sup]41[/sup] ways to get 16 blackjacks where I want them.

so, it seems that the chance of getting my 16 blackjacks is on the order of 10[sup]41[/sup] / 10[sup]393[/sup] = 10[sup]-352[/sup].

Where are our calcs diverging? As I understand it, you’re saying that the total number of ways that 208 cards can be placed in a shoe is 10[sup]1024[/sup] …

Thanks!

G.

Apart from the fact that I made an error, and the number of card sequences in the shoe is less than I stipulated, there is no real difference. Where there is a problem is that you treat the blackjack (A+K, A+Q, A+J, A+10) as a special case. It is exacly as likely as A+2 or 7+8 or 2+J… or any other combination. We tend to consider the blackjack as “special” because it is deemed to be a winning configuration, but that is just an artifical rule. If the rule would be that a 2+3 is the winner, we would concentrate on that.

 

[Serious]

OK: so your argument reduces to the assertion that “if there is no creator God, then the world is just a highly unlikely outcome”. I’ll buy that; in fact, I agree with that assertion.

However, your assertion necessarily presumes “honest game” (i.e., no design). So, what’s your basis for presuming that the game is “honest” (i.e., has no designer)?

Because there is no sign of a designer. There is a common error by the ID proponents, they assume that ORDER equals DESIGN which is definitely not true. There is order in the universe, that cannot be denied. But order does not lead to design.

 

[danserr]

So far there is no reason to assume that there is a “crooked” wheel in play. That is exactly what Dembski attempts to establish. And fails.
.

OK: so your argument reduces to the assertion that “if there is no creator God, then the world is just a highly unlikely outcome”. I’ll buy that; in fact, I agree with that assertion.

However, your assertion necessarily presumes “honest game” (i.e., no design).

Serious:
It seems like Georgias points out that you are assuming an honest game in advance, but this seems to make your argument question begging. You rule out design a priori.

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
You said if there are enough draws, then it is not surprising if any combination comes up. This is the multiverse hypothesis.

No, it is a Kolmogorov space. Simple mathematics, has nothing to do with the physical universe. Have you studied probability theory?

I quote you directly post 12:

If enough people would be dealing enough hands, it would be mathematically certain that such an occurrence would happen.

You are saying that in enough draws, then sooner or later we would expect to have even an unusual series of draws.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand that this is precisely the multiverse hypethosis. It holds that there are so many other universes that do not support life, that we should not be surprised that this one does.

By holding this view, you seem to be admitting the weakness of the chance theory by itself.

It is not suspicion. There is nothing to be suspicious about - since nothing suspicious has happened. First show me those 12 blackjacks in a row using a card shuffling machine - then and only then we can speak. The universe is not a “conscious” opponent. The proper experiment must emulate reality, and there is no “shuffler” out there. That is what you attempt to show, but you are not allowed to use “dirty pool”.

So, you affirm here that you are assuming in advance that there is no design. Your argument is thus question begging.

But that is what we are trying to determine, whether there is any design or “cheating.”

So, again,

12 hands of 5 card raw in a row. 12 times I win with four Aces. Do you dismiss this as the result of chance or assume design (cheating). (And no nonsense about "Well, if I knew you were not cheating, then I would assume chance)

 

[Gorgias]

The number of sequences is much less than 208!. It is 208! divided by 52!*52!5252! - make sure that we do not distinguish the “ace of spades” (for example) based upon from which deck it comes from.

True. I just decided to be blind to that consideration in the denominator (for ease of calculation), so I was blind to it in the numerator as well. It all washes out in the end, especially since I’m just approximating…

Where there is a problem is that you treat the blackjack (A+K, A+Q, A+J, A+10) as a special case. It is exacly as likely as A+2 or 7+8 or 2+J… or any other combination. We tend to consider the blackjack as “special” because it is deemed to be a winning configuration, but that is just an artifical rule. If the rule would be that a 2+3 is the winner, we would concentrate on that.

Well, I don’t think I’m looking at it as a “special case”, per se – but, by definition, it is the outcome we’re looking to solve for. In the case of the universe, I would think that the “special case” is the notion of a rational physical being, as a sort of ‘pinnacle’ of creation.

By your comment, though, I take it that you don’t see anything special in the state of creation? That is, everything you see, you just take as having a value no more worthwhile than, for example, a universe in which the forces of fundamental particles ‘work’ differently than in our universe, thus thwarting the development of sentient life?

 

[Serious]

It seems like Georgias points out that you are assuming an honest game in advance, but this seems to make your argument question begging. You rule out design a priori.

Of course. That is not question begging, it is pointing out the obvious. Now it may be that the obvious is incorrect, I accept that. But it is not my job to defend the obvious, it is Dembski’s job to show that what seems to be obvious is really not. And his argument is incorrect.

You are saying that in enough draws, then sooner or later we would expect to have even an unusual series of draws.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand that this is precisely the multiverse hypethosis. It holds that there are so many other universes that do not support life, that we should not be surprised that this one does.

I don’t care about the multiverse theory. The “enough” number of experiments does not rely on the multiverse theory.

 

[Serious]

True. I just decided to be blind to that consideration in the denominator (for ease of calculation), so I was blind to it in the numerator as well. It all washes out in the end, especially since I’m just approximating…

Your numerator was just fine. As a matter of fact, I STILL made an error in the divisor. The correct formula is X = 208!/(16!)[sup]13[/sup] - in the numerator we take all the possible sequences if the 4 decks of cards all had a different back-side, In the divisor we elininate the “back-sides” since all the 16 aces, kings, etc… are interchangable. As such X becomes (208/16)[sup]208[/sup] which is 13[sup]208[/sup], which is 10[sup]231[/sup].

But that does not really matter, Whether the number of zeros is 214 or 231 or 353 does not change the fact that any specific sequence is incredibly improbable, but that does not invoke the assumption of the card-fairy.

As a matter of fact, in some casinos they use 5 or 6 decks of cards, lowering the chances of any sequence even further, but there is still no “card-genie” lurking in those boxes.

Well, I don’t think I’m looking at it as a “special case”, per se – but, by definition, it is the outcome we’re looking to solve for. In the case of the universe, I would think that the “special case” is the notion of a rational physical being, as a sort of ‘pinnacle’ of creation.

Why? That is just plain anthropomorphism, or tribe-mentality. It has nothing to do with mathematics.

By your comment, though, I take it that you don’t see anything special in the state of creation? That is, everything you see, you just take as having a value no more worthwhile than, for example, a universe in which the forces of fundamental particles ‘work’ differently than in our universe, thus thwarting the development of sentient life?

There is no special “value”. We, as sentient beings assign a special value to ourselves. However, the problem is completely different.

Dembski is not dumb, he is dishonest. He admits that the sheer improbability is not an indication of “design”. He drags in an additional parameter: the “pattern”. He gives the following example:
Let there be an archer in front of a huge white wall, so huge that the archer cannot possibly miss it. There is one arrow shot at the wall. There are incredibly many points the arrow might have hit, and it hits one of them. He accepts - correctly - that from the sheer improability of hitting that particular point we cannot draw the conculsion that there was “design” involved in the shot.

Now he says: “let’s say that on the wall there is a very small circle, and the arrow hit within that circle”. From that fact it “follows” - he says - that it is rational to assume an intelligent archer, and not a blindfolded one, who just shot randomly. And guess what - he would be right IF that small circle would have been drawn BEFORE the shot actually took place.

But that did not happen. Keeping his example, there is the huge white wall, there is one arrow shot, and after the shot was fired THEN he snuck up to the wall and drew that small circle around the shot, claimed: "look! incredibly improbable that it could have happened by accident!. It must have been designed.
And that is inexcusable. Obviously the mathematicians all realize his shenanigan, and laugh at him. But he never presented his “theory” in a science journal. The poor laymen do not see the cheating, and repeat his nonsense all over the place.

The trick he performs is the “pattern”. People do not realize that the pattern is not an inherent property of something, it is imposed by the observer. Suppose that in the lottery (5 numbers out of 90) the actual numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… Most people would see a pattern there, and maybe even suspect that some dirty pool was going on. If the numbers would be 17, 19, 23, 29 and 31, no one would be “suspicious” because they look like a nice, ordinary, random sequence. Of course a mathematician sees five consecutive prime numbers. Or maybe the numbers drawn are 5, 17, 36, 41, 78. They sure look random to everyone, except a hypothetical Bob, who is 41 years old, whose wife is 36, has two children of ages 5 and 17, and whose mother is 78 years old. The point is that the “pattern” in not an objective phenomenon at all, it is imposed my the observer.

What would indicate a design beyond any doubt, would be the prediction on a very improbable event - for example the prediction of the next 50 drawings on the PowerBall. Everyone can have a 20/20 hindsight - foresight is a whole different matter.

 

[inocente]

Intelligent design is a different sort of thing from the fine-tuning argument. Dembski’s best arguments are where he applies his argument to the fine-tuning of the universe for life. I do not propose to defend the ID position here.

I can understand wanting to distance Dembski from ID now that ID is sooo twentieth century, but while he’s not written anything with “fine tuning” in the title, his income does seem to ride on ID books:
Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence
…

 

[inocente]

Is he arguing on the basis of multiple trials? Or is asking about the occurrence of a given outcome given a single trial? (And, in the course of that argument, demonstrating that even if there were a multiplicity of trials, there would still be an insufficient number of them to demonstrate a greater-than-negligible chance of the outcome occurring?)

I’m no math perfessor but think everyone might be over-complicating this by talking about trials.

The main argument from Mark Chu-Carroll (the blogger in the OP) is along different lines. Basically, cup some sand between your palms and according to Dembski’s definition of the upb, the exact layout and orientation of the grains must have been designed. According to Dembski every possible configuration must be designed since it has a “degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in”.

The contention is that the whole concept of the upb is darn silly, since whatever the value chosen, it will always admit more false positives than true positives.

 

[Serious]

Let me add one more observation about the pattern. Since you are a math geek, you can follow it, I am sure. Let’s say that we get 5 random numbers on the lottery drawing, namely a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], a[sub]3[/sub], a[sub]4[/sub], a[sub]5[/sub].
A pattern is simply a regularity of the five numbers which can be expressed as a function of F(x) so that
F(1) = a[sub]1[/sub],
F(2) = a[sub]2[/sub],
F(3) = a[sub]3[/sub],
F(4) = a[sub]4[/sub],
F(5) = a[sub]5[/sub]
(Example: the draw is 2, 5, 10, 17, 26… a nice, seemingly random sequence, where the pattern is F(x) = x[sup]2[/sup] + 1 the first 5 square numbers with a “1” added to them.)

Now such a function can always be constructed (and it would be a simple polynomial in the form of ax[sup]5[/sup] + bx[sup]4[/sup] + cx[sup]3[/sup] + dx[sup]2[/sup] + e*x + f) and so the “pattern” or “regularity” can always be created, no matter what the numbers are. (The same is true for the blackjack-hands and the roulette spins - all one million of them). I hope you see the significance of it. We create the regularity or the pattern. In other words, no matter which 5 numbers come out on the lottery (or which hand comes out on blackjack or which spin happens on the roulette), we can always create this function and then proclaim: “look, a regularity! it could not have happened by sheer accident”. So now we have also “lottery-genie”, too, right next to the “blackjack-fairy” and the “roulette-magician”.

I hope nothing else needs to be said. Dembski is a charlatan. Period.

 

[inocente]

Is he arguing on the basis of multiple trials? Or is asking about the occurrence of a given outcome given a single trial? (And, in the course of that argument, demonstrating that even if there were a multiplicity of trials, there would still be an insufficient number of them to demonstrate a greater-than-negligible chance of the outcome occurring?)

I’m no math perfessor but think everyone might be over-complicating this by talking about trials.

The main argument from Mark Chu-Carroll (the blogger in the OP) is along different lines. Basically, cup some sand between your palms and according to Dembski’s definition of the upb, the exact layout and orientation of the grains must have been designed. According to Dembski every possible configuration must be designed since it has a “degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in”.

The contention is that the whole concept of the upb is darn silly, since whatever the value chosen, it will always admit more false positives than true positives.

 

[danserr]

I can understand wanting to distance Dembski from ID now that ID is sooo twentieth century, but while he’s not written anything with “fine tuning” in the title, his income does seem to ride on ID books:
Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence
…

Doesn’t matter. His theory is also useful (franky, I think more useful) for the fine-tuning arguments.

I don’t currently find ID stuff persuasive (though I also know less about it that fine-tuning arguments), but even the atheist Peter Millican in a recent debate with William Lane Craig admitted that he didn’t find Darwinian evolution persuasive and expected it to be replaced with something else.

 

[Gorgias]

And guess what - he would be right IF that small circle would have been drawn BEFORE the shot actually took place.

But that did not happen. Keeping his example, there is the huge white wall, there is one arrow shot, and after the shot was fired THEN he snuck up to the wall and drew that small circle around the shot, claimed: "look! incredibly improbable that it could have happened by accident!. It must have been designed.
And that is inexcusable.

I think you’re misquoting the example.

I wasn’t familiar with it, so I looked it up (Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Dembski, W.A. and Kushiner, J.M. (Brazos Press, 2001), p 180). It seems that Dembski’s saying the following:

• If the archer shoots first and paints second, there’s nothing to see here: the ‘pattern’, so to speak, is ad hoc.
• If the archer paints first and shoots second, then there’s both design and ability to execute on the design (‘mastery’).

These assertions seem valid, wouldn’t you agree?

Yet again, though, you make an a priori assertion: the archer has shot and then the circle was drawn. That’s not part of the example. In fact, if there was an observer to the event, there’d be no question: it’d be clear what, in fact, had happened. The observer, however, comes upon the scene after the drawing and the shooting, and doesn’t know which happened first. What’s in play isn’t what the archer does, it’s what the observer subsequently observes. The question he seems to be asking is whether there’s a point at which one may begin to posit ‘design’ over ‘astronomically small chance’.

The trick he performs is the “pattern”. People do not realize that the pattern is not an inherent property of something, it is imposed by the observer.

And, by chance, looking at p 181, I see that he seems to admit that not all things that seem to be patterns are, in fact, patterns: “Just about any data set will contain strange and improbable patterns if we look hard enough.” Unfortunately, he also admits, “(b)y forcing experimenters to set their rejection regions prior to an experiment, the statistician protects the experiment from spurious patters that could just as well result from chance”. Of course, in the notion of the UPB, the problem is that there is no a priori setting of a ‘rejection region’; without reading the book, I can’t say whether he addresses this (glaring) issue.

What would indicate a design beyond any doubt, would be the prediction on a very improbable event - for example the prediction of the next 50 drawings on the PowerBall. Everyone can have a 20/20 hindsight - foresight is a whole different matter.

Quite right. And, just taking a quick look at it, as I have, I would say that the argument for UPB isn’t proof ‘beyond any doubt’, but rather, the creation of an interesting heuristic.

 

[danserr]

Of course. That is not question begging, it is pointing out the obvious. Now it may be that the obvious is incorrect, I accept that. But it is not my job to defend the obvious, it is Dembski’s job to show that what seems to be obvious is really not. And his argument is incorrect.

Ok, so what we are doing is looking at a given occurrence (the present universe) and trying to figure out if it shows good evidence of design. You admit that you assume in advance that it does not show this evidence. On the basis of this, you interpret the data to argue that it is not designed. This is the very definition of question begging.

I don’t care about the multiverse theory. The “enough” number of experiments does not rely on the multiverse theory.

The only way to account for “enough” universes to make the present one unsurprising is multi-verse theory.

There is no special “value”. We, as sentient beings assign a special value to ourselves. However, the problem is completely different.

Dembski is not dumb, he is dishonest. He admits that the sheer improbability is not an indication of “design”. He drags in an additional parameter: the “pattern”. He gives the following example:

Interesting, now I know this perfectly well, but you stated otherwise in your previous posts. You have kept trying to claim that Dembski claimed that improbability alone was indicative of design. As when you said:

Dembski simply says that for any event for which is the probability is less than 10-150 it is rational to assume an intelligent source and it is irrational to assume random chance.

I am glad you now admit otherwise.

And this seems quite obvious. Consider, for instance, one of my examples that you are so remarkably reluctant to actually engage with.

You are I are playing 5 card poker and I win with 4 Aces 12 times in a row. I doubt even despite your radical skepticism that you would shrug this off as the result of chance (well, I assume an honest game in advance, so this must have been honest).

Why do you assume that I am cheating? Because of the combination of high improbability plus independently given pattern!

Your only remaining move is to say:

he would be right IF that small circle would have been drawn BEFORE the shot actually took place.

Almost, but not quite. The issue is not that the pattern is given before but that it is given independantly. This is why your counter-example fails:

after the shot was fired THEN he snuck up to the wall and drew that small circle around the shot,

Here, the pattern is not given independantly, and so does not indicate design.

That is the key point. The pattern does not need to be given in advance, but it needs to be given independently. Hence:

Now in the case of intelligent life, the pattern of life-permitting conditions is given independently of and, indeed, long before, cosmologists’ discovery of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. So the fine-tuning seems to exhibit just that combination of enormous improbability and an independently given pattern that tips us off to design. Thus, in so far as fine-tuning is concerned, it is not the case that "the rules about royal flushes are being made up only after the hand has been dealt.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-argument#ixzz1sxtmX8c8