Science and Religion: A Math Theory Request

[The_Questioner]

Greetings:

Before anything, I am a 50 year young man with Aspergers and ADHD that considers himself a free-thinking Catholic.
This question is in two parts.
And my sincere apology for the length of the second one, it might seem like a wall of words, but i saw no other way to properly post it without changing anything in the question's content, interpretation or meaning.

1) First, a personal question, this is to see just how far math and science is related, in your person:

"How important is mathematics to you, what place has mathematics to you, and how far does mathematics have an impact on your thinking/accepting?"

2) Here we have the actual math question, the one I warned you about:

a) Could you please calculate the odds, percentage-wise preferably, just how big the change is that the universe and everything in it, thus, the universe from Big Bang to this day in age and everything that comes with it, such as the placing of all bodies, the creation of elements,  the creation of our solar system, the perfect positioning of Earth in the solar system which has the perfect sun to sustain life (as we know it, for the record), the forming of Earth, the first start of life (that simple single form cell up to the enourmous variety of life (plant, animal, fish, insectoid, ...) through all time periods) on Earth, the complete evolution of life with human origins and evolution as greatest importation in this part,  the way ecology systems work and how nature has been able to withstand (albeit FASTLY losing this batttle more and more swiftly) the polution and destruction by human(oid) hands (throughout all eras of humanoid existance), actually random luck is, and thus not created by whom- (be it God, Jahwe, Jehova, Allah, ...)or whatever the "creator" (a god, an intellectual energy form, an alien playing the Sims (I said this alien thing here, to show that I leave it in the actual middle what this creator might be as I have not a single clue, NOT to create a mockery. Also, I said this to make sure, in my own unusual and autistic (Aspergers with ADHD, note) way to not insult anyone in any way.), ...)?

Thank you very much.

Edited December 22, 2018 by The_Questioner
Type error corrections and simple edit

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

a) Could you please calculate the odds, percentage-wise preferably, just how big the change is that the universe and everything in it, thus, the universe from Big Bang to this day in age ...

100%. Because here we are.

On the other hand, could things have been different if the Earth had been slightly nearer or further from the Sun, or the Sun was larger or smaller? Of course. And there may well be other planets where life and evolution took a different route.

Quote

the perfect positioning of Earth in the solar system

 the perfect sun to sustain life

There is nothing "perfect" about these. Life has evolved to use what is there. So they seem perfect because we have adapted to them.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Douglas Adams

22 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

the complete evolution of life with human origins and evolution as greatest importation in this part

I have no idea why you think that is the "greatest importation". We are busy destroying the environment and causing a mass extinction. Is your god proud of that? Was it part of her plan?

Quote

nature has been able to withstand (albeit FASTLY losing this batttle more and more swiftly) the polution and destruction by human(oid) hands

Through all of human existence, when people moved to new areas of the planet, they wiped out large numbers of the species there. And, when other humans were there, they have often destroyed them too.

Not a great record.

 

[iNow]

The odds of all this existing exactly as it does are one. It happened. No more probabilities needed. It’s 1. 

You also reminded me of this:

Lol. X posted with strange who even referenced the same damned quote. Love it!

[The_Questioner]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

100%. Because here we are.

On the other hand, could things have been different if the Earth had been slightly nearer or further from the Sun, or the Sun was larger or smaller? Of course. And there may well be other planets where life and evolution took a different route.

There is nothing "perfect" about these. Life has evolved to use what is there. So they seem perfect because we have adapted to them.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Douglas Adams

I have no idea why you think that is the "greatest importation". We are busy destroying the environment and causing a mass extinction. Is your god proud of that? Was it part of her plan?

Through all of human existence, when people moved to new areas of the planet, they wiped out large numbers of the species there. And, when other humans were there, they have often destroyed them too.

Not a great record.

 

Thank you for the swift reply:

I believe we have a mis-communication: idea is not to calculate the odds of us being here (which by itself has no religious meaning), but the odds that all this that is and this since the Big Bang, is pure luck, and not a creation by X (whom- or whater X may be).

As for size, place and type of the sun and our place in the solar system, I consider this to be the 'golden chance' (or 'perfect' considering all could have been quite different, hotter sun, other type sun, the place of Earth in the system, ...).
Please note that my primary language is not English, but Dutch, and mistakes from my side in explaining things, or putting things a bit bad or awkward, are a possibility.

Greatest importance (in existing form), this had to be.
My apologies.
And I fully agree, we humans are by all means a pest, we are locusts.
Quite damn literally.
We are the smartest dumb species on the planet.
Our planet would have been much better off without us.

As "for my God: did He want this?"
That, Sir, is not a fair question!!!
He gave us free will, He is not the cause of OUR FAILURES, WE are, sir.
Did He want children to die of hunger and thirst?
FUCK no.
He gave US the option to fix this, but WE chose to be selfish, self-centered and completely uncaring for those suffering.
Hell, WE are the ones that rather send poor bastards back to place of origine, because we do not like to share our space with them, for whatever reason.
That is US, not God, Sir...

 

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

The odds of all this existing exactly as it does are one. It happened. No more probabilities needed. It’s 1. 

You also reminded me of this:

Lol. X posted with strange who even referenced the same damned quote. Love it!

With all due respect: I asked a mathematical chance of everything being just pure luck.
I did not ask to be mocked with.

I do not care, good sir, whether you are gay or not, religious or not, or anything else.
I respect you for who you are, and I do not mock you for your ideologies or feelings.

Please give me that same courtesy?
Thank you.

[Klaynos]

As to the importance of mathematics in modern science. 

It's the language and the framework that the physical sciences are built. Repeatable predictions of physical measurements are fundemental to science, to do that accurately you need mathematics.  

"If I let go of this ball it will drop" is not as accurate as "if I let go of this ball, given the local gravity, air resistance and distance to the floor it will hit the ground in 7 seconds". You can then measure the 7 seconds and see if, given the relavent errors, the values are consistent with each other. 

As to the probability, even if it's very very very small, we should again refer to the great man (Douglas Adams),

Quote

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

 

[The_Questioner]

3 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

As to the importance of mathematics in modern science. 

It's the language and the framework that the physical sciences are built. Repeatable predictions of physical measurements are fundemental to science, to do that accurately you need mathematics.  

"If I let go of this ball it will drop" is not as accurate as "if I let go of this ball, given the local gravity, air resistance and distance to the floor it will hit the ground in 7 seconds". You can then measure the 7 seconds and see if, given the relavent errors, the values are consistent with each other. 

Thank you, Sir.
Appreciate your reply on the first question.

Now, could you be so kind, to do the maths I requested for, from a neutral, and thus unbiassed, point of view?
I myself am no mathematician, and have no clue on how to begin on this...
Hence i came here.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

I believe we have a mis-communication: idea is not to calculate the odds of us being here (which by itself has no religious meaning), but the odds that all this that is and this since the Big Bang, is pure luck, and not a creation by X (whom- or whater X may be).

It is impossible to calculate anything like that.

3 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

As for size, place and type of the sun and our place in the solar system, I consider this to be the 'golden chance' (or 'perfect' considering all could have been quite different, hotter sun, other type sun, the place of Earth in the system, ...).

What makes it perfect. It could have been different and then we would have evolved for that different environment. And, as a result, we would consider it "perfect".

This is a common Creationist fallacy.

7 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

As "for my God: did He want this?"
That, Sir, is not a fair question!!!
He gave us free will, He is not the cause of OUR FAILURES, WE are, sir.
Did He want children to die of hunger and thirst?
FUCK no.
He gave US the option to fix this, but WE chose to be selfish, self-centered and completely uncaring for those suffering.
Hell, WE are the ones that rather send poor bastards back to place of origine, because we do not like to share our space with them, for whatever reason.
That is US, not God, Sir...

So you believe in an all powerful god who is unable (or too lazy, or too evil) to do anything useful.

I am not opposed to religion, but if you tell me what you believe then I am quite happy to tell you how ridiculous it sounds. If you don't like that, keep your beliefs to yourself.

9 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

I did not ask to be mocked with.

You are not being mocked. People are just explaining your error of thinking the world is "perfect" because we evolved to fit.

 

 

[The_Questioner]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is impossible to calculate anything like that.

What makes it perfect. It could have been different and then we would have evolved for that different environment. And, as a result, we would consider it "perfect".

This is a common Creationist fallacy.

So you believe in an all powerful god who is unable (or too lazy, or too evil) to do anything useful.

I am not opposed to religion, but if you tell me what you believe then I am quite happy to tell you how ridiculous it sounds. If you don't like that, keep your beliefs to yourself.

You are not being mocked. People are just explaining your error of thinking the world is "perfect" because we evolved to fit.

 

 

Why is it impossible, sir?

Precisely, you worded very nicely what I meant, thank you.

 

I believe in a God, yes.
Now, let me repeat myself from the first post: I consider myself a free-thinking Catholic.
I do not believe that God and the Devil are 2 opposing forces, but that both are one and the same.
I do not believe, i CANNOT believe that God is only good, where the 'devil' is only bad.
If God is omnipotent, if He is ALL, then surely, evil is His as well.
One cannot create what is not in his power.
If God was indeed all-good, then evil would never have existed.
God created, gave FREE WILL, and a ball for us to do with as we please.
Kind of nice, I think.
Maybe He enjoys us doing what we do, maybe He created us because he was bored, and he sees us as a game of Sims.
I do not know.
I do not even know, He exists!!!
And i am not even remotely kidding here.
BUT!
I do NOT DENY it either.
I cannot DISPROVE Him.
Or Her, it, whatever God, or the Creator is.

When I look at the whole existence, I cannot exclude The Creator, because it just fits together all too well.

Take Earth.
We fly around this glowing ball in JUST the right spot, not oo cold, not too hot.
But we do this in an elliptic, egg-shaped traject, not too far of on any side, JUUUUST enough to get seasons.
Around us is that other, tiny ball, we call moon.
Now that one does make a fairly perfect circle, juuuuust rightly, so that we get eb and flood.
Which oxygenizes our seas and such, and thus provides air for water creatures.
But in JUUUUUST the right balance, not too much of one, and not to little of the other.
Then we got our Earth spinning around it's own axis, which is slightly tilted, not too much to any side, no, juuuust right.

Back when Earth had cooled down, and seas were formed, a few comets, accidentally carrying a few simple cells, fall into that uniquely well thought out play of stellar objects.
Falling juuuust in the right place with the right speed to not kill these cells off.

And for Godknowswhatreason, these cells figure: well, we're bored, lets for up and make plants.
And more complex cells,
And even more complex cells.
And even MORE.... hold on, what do we got here... a... fish?
But lets not stop there.
Crab, eel, blah blah dinos blah blah ooops, meteor, all dead, but that's OK, we managed to survive, let's start allover....
Dogs, cats, elephant, human...

And from a scientific point of view, all having VERY awesomely working organs and whatnot.
Juuuuust right.
Juuuust perfectly right, all...

IMHO, JUUUUUST a BIT too perfect for everything to be just a frikken fluke.
Too orchestrated, too constructed, to be just a heap of luck.

But, that, well, that is me.
And me are not scientist, me are simple people.
So me think this idea not suit you.
Feel free to have a different opinion, Sir.  

Edited December 22, 2018 by The_Questioner

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

Thank you for the swift reply:

I believe we have a mis-communication: idea is not to calculate the odds of us being here (which by itself has no religious meaning), but the odds that all this that is and this since the Big Bang, is pure luck, and not a creation by X (whom- or whater X may be).

The observable universe has had 13.8 billion years to evolve to the stage it has at this time. The elements that make up you and me are found throughout, the extent of the universe is "near infinite" the content [stars/planets etc] are "near infinite", the stuff of life is everywhere, so that given the right conditions, life will evolve.

 

Quote

Please note that my primary language is not English, but Dutch, and mistakes from my side in explaining things, or putting things a bit bad or awkward, are a possibility.

Anywhere near Masstricht city of where that fantastic entrepeneur/entertainer/violinist called Andre Rieu and the Johann Strauss Orchestra reside and of which I have 20 dvd's of their incredible performances?  
 

 

Quote

With all due respect: I asked a mathematical chance of everything being just pure luck.
I did not ask to be mocked with.

The problem is that science  forums such as this are peppered constantly with individuals trying to install their personal god of the gaps in areas where science does not know the answers, and others that are simply out to troll and deride the science. So members do get rather annoyed at such individuals. The mathematical chances of all this being pure luck? Excellent as we are here to contemplate that...Science/cosmology can reasonably explain how everything came to be as it is, from t+10-43 seconds. Also worth considering that the Catholic church finds no conflict of interests with accepting the BB and the theory of the evolution of life, with that of a deity. Science though continues to ask questions without "short circuiting" the inquiry by claiming some deity done it. Sometimes people with agendas do come to science forums to ask questions but with no intention of accepting any answers. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by beecee

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

With all due respect: I asked a mathematical chance of everything being just pure luck.

Pure luck assumes no order or rules. Like the creationist asking about a junkyard tornado to attack abiogenesis, it displays a deep ignorance regarding the actual principles involved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado

 

39 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

I did not ask to be mocked with.

Who would? What an odd comment. 

[The_Questioner]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

The observable universe has had 13.8 billion years to evolve to the stage it has at this time. The elements that make up you and me are found throughout, the extent of the universe is "near infinite" the content [stars/planets etc] are "near infinite", the stuff of life is everywhere, so that given the right conditions, life will evolve.

 

Anywhere near Masstricht city of where that fantastic entrepeneur/entertainer/violinist called Andre Rieu and the Johann Strauss Orchestra reside and of which I have 20 dvd's of their incredible performances?  
 

 

The problem is that science  forums such as this are peppered constantly with individuals trying to install their personal god of the gaps in areas where science does not know the answers, and others that are simply out to troll and deride the science. So members do get rather annoyed at such individuals. The mathematical chances of all this being pure luck? Excellent as we are here to contemplate that...Science/cosmology can reasonably explain how everything came to be as it is, from t+10-43 seconds. Also worth considering that the Catholic church finds no conflict of interests with accepting the BB and the theory of the evolution of life, with that of a deity. Science though continues to ask questions without "short circuiting" the inquiry by claiming some deity done it. 

Oh, yes, I FULLY agree with this statement.
And yet, as I wrote before, it feels just a bit too orchestrated, too organized, too constructed, to be just stupid luck.

I live in Meerhout, Belgium, so quite near Maastricht, indeed.
I LOVE Andre Rieu, and James Last, Beethoven, Bach, ...
I love 40's up to 90's, I love ethnical music, black and death metal, I am somewhat over the whole planet, music wise.
Do you, by accident, know the Gyoto Monks, these throat singing monks from Tibet?
MARVELOUS "music".

Oh, rest assured, i do not try to place God anywhere.
God is, for me, MY thing.
If you believe, good.
If you don't, just as good to me.
I do not care for what you believe, good sir.
You see, in MY autistic universe (or if you prefere, multiverse), there are only 2 species in the complete whole that is creation (where creation is not ment in biblical form, but in post-big bang era): The ones I can live with (whether animal, human, alien, whatnot), and those i severely dislike (racists, criminals, ..., the "not nice people" if you like).
My black and white existence is sooo simple and cool, one cannot believe...  
I respect anyone, everyone is my friend, until he/she/it crosses me in one way or another.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

Oh, yes, I FULLY agree with this statement.
And yet, as I wrote before, it feels just a bit too orchestrated, too organized, too constructed, to be just stupid luck.

Have you heard of the "Anthropic Principal"? Basically it says that the universe is the way it is simply because we are here to observe it. Nothing remarkable, nothing really orchestrated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Quote

I respect anyone, everyone is my friend, until he/she/it crosses me in one way or another

As I said, members do sometimes get short with people with obvious agendas and that while asking so called questions, have no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda. 

My apologies for raising Andre Rieu, it is of topic and something they do frown on.  

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, The_Questioner said:

Thank you for the swift reply:

I believe we have a mis-communication: idea is not to calculate the odds of us being here (which by itself has no religious meaning), but the odds that all this that is and this since the Big Bang, is pure luck, and not a creation by X (whom- or whater X may be).

The probability of something happening, if it has already happened, is 1.

”Pure luck” is not involved, as the outcomes of science need not be random. If you combine oxygen and hydrogen and add a spark, you get water. Not some assortment of different molecules assembled by luck.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, The_Questioner said:

Why is it impossible, sir?

Well, how would you calculate it?

1 hour ago, The_Questioner said:

Take Earth.
We fly around this glowing ball in JUST the right spot, not oo cold, not too hot.

How many more times. It only appears to be "not too cold, not too hot" because we have evolved for the environment we are in. If it was consistently hotter or colder, we would have evolved differently and there would be "people" saying, "look this temperature of -30° is perfectly designed for us!"

1 hour ago, The_Questioner said:

But, that, well, that is me.
And me are not scientist, me are simple people.
So me think this idea not suit you.
Feel free to have a different opinion, Sir.

I don't care about your opinions. This is a science site.

[The_Questioner]

@ Sir Strange, Moderator:

With all due respect, sir Moderator, and I must say, I do not know you, I ONLY react to your responses here, but you seem to be an uptight, narrowminded, biassed and judgemental person.
Let me elaborate, please:
I came here with a very simple, 2-part question: what is math to you, and please calculate X, where X was the chance of ALL being merely luck.
Nothing more.
Right?

Being 50, I have no fun in childish games like trolling, forcing opinions or ideas on anyone, engaging people with nonsense, ... .
Not sure where you surf on the net, and note I am a Netizen (I virtually live in my computer), but I do not see many half-century aged folks do that kind of thing.
However, I admit, I can be mistaken, this statement has no scientific value, therefor.
Still, I have not met many half-centennials that keep themselves busy trolling and annoying others on forums.
I believe that those that do these things as hobbies are mostly Millenials, children or immature, frustrated and bored people.
But, I need to admit, here too Icould I be quite wrong, and thus this as well has no scientific value.
That aside,I do not agree in your disrespective, patronizing and judgemental reaction to me, sir.
I did not deserve this.

You told me, can't be done, I accepted that answer, even though I asked to explain why this cannot be calculated.
To which I never received a response explaining this impossibility.

This was asked, so I could understand the reason why this was impossible to calculate.
To learn.
What, or so I figured from a logical point of view, a SCIENCE FORUM was all about?
Was I wrong to assume this, sir?

OH YES, I spoke of what I thought, experienced.
But this was "provoked" by other people here, that politely asked/spoke to me me about this.
Being polite myself, sir, I thought it was only reasonable, logical, respectful and polite to reply to their interest in my humble point of view, whatever their reason was.
MAYBE they were actually genuine interested in my thoughts.
And seeing this is a forum, I figured, it was not bad to have a different opinion spoken out, WITHOUT forcing this upon anyone.
In the end: science, for part, is discussion, correct, sir?
And adults are 'supposed' to have the tact and skill for a respectful discussion, no?
Yet, this option is taken by you.

As stated, in that regard, sir Moderator, I do not care for religion, sexual preference, colour of skin, language, to me there are only 2 species in the uni-/multiverse, whichever you prefer (and even that stated i could not give a flying fuck about your preference, correct?).
But no, you deem me an invader, a pest, a troll, something to be very far away from.

Now, again, I do not know you at all, I ONLY react to your responses and the lack there-of in the question as to why it cannot be calculated.

But these responses, from a claimed "scientific based person", are all but correct in approach, as I understand science.
Science is about OPENMINDEDNESS in ALL MATTER until either PROVEN or DISPROVEN.
Is that not so, sir?

Now, sure, regious people have not proven a goddamn thing (see what I did here?) to prove anything even remotely, and I completely get and respect this, sir, but SCIENCE HAS FAILED TO DISPROVE IT AS WELL, and I expect YOU to get and respect this, and thus act as such.
This simply states that both sides are at an impasse, incapable of proving it either way.
And this, from an adult and scientific point of view, SHOULD tell you not to spew conclusion nor bias on the bloody topic?
As, from a scientific point, both should be considered STILL EQUALLY POSSIBLE, thus VALID?
Think the cat in the box, the sadist Schroedinger (poor cat, he had to get in that box himself)!
Both are correct, until observed (thus proven or disproven).
Or am I wrong here?
If so, please tell me, and support that with proper motivation, in a respectful way.
After all, I am here to learn, and thus, if needed, change my point of view on the matter.
When i am wrong, I am wrong, and I will act accordingly.


Still, you going hard towards my person on my religion based question is FAR OUT OF LINE, good sir.
I did not deserve this.

As to prove that I am actually not here to "force my opinion" as you see my attempt to gain a maths result and information, later on the topic went to music and Maastricht.
This alone states, that I am "not solely here for the religious aspect of the topic", or to troll and annoy all here, as you appear to think, but to get an answer to both questions.
The topic was basically closed, however, by you stating 'can't be done'.
And i did go into a different discussion, not topic related, this I very much admit!!!!, with, who I consider a nice person, sir BeeCee, who did NOT condemn me on my question, although he stated in honest to me, that he too was unsure of my intention at first.
Which, when he explained why, I can understand his prime reaction.
Still, the good soul gave me a pass, a change, still.
Others too were cautious, but none really got onto my case, thusfar.
Heck, i can even unsderstand YOUR thoughts on the matter, just not the way you respond to me.
I find it to be, quite frankly, appaling, not suited for a Moderator to react as you did..
I AT LEAST should have had the benefit of the doubt, being NEW here, and not being cast out to be a pariah from the very start onwards, sir.

Again, with all due respect, of course.

As for: "I don't care about your opinions. This is a science site.": have I forced something upon you?
Have I said something to make you say this?
I think not, as, as said afore in this very post, all i wrote was "provoked" by third parties.
And I replied, polite and respectful.
This sentence by itself is damn disrespectful towards my person, and frankly, it gives me the impression that you are (most likely incorrectly, but this I cannot tell, I go by the responses I got so far, and this line in particular) a, and please, excuse me my French here, prick.

And if you excuse me now, sir Moderator, I would like to close the religion part with you, and, with your permission, PM with sir BeeCee about music, and answer to the kind people here that did get into a healthy discussion with me on religion and other topics?

OH, and BEFORE you accuse me of being patronizing, I use SIR as an expression of RESPECT and POLITENESS, sir, NOT in an attempt to be patronizing.
Just for the good record.

Kindest regards, Merry Christmas, and may all the best life can ever offer be on your path, evermore (this is to all people here, btw, not just jou, sir Moderator).
The_Req.

Addendum: please forgive me, sir, for any typo's and/or sentence structure errors, again, English is not my prime language...
Also, as stated, bear in mind, as i stated before, I have Aspergers and ADHD (for which I take 200mg Rilatine a day, just to be able to function somewhat 'normally').

If you believe I am out of line, then bear in mind the following FACTS!!!:
I was not:
-impolite
-disrespectful
-insulting
-judgemental
-attacking anyone/anything
-forcing an idea
-trolling
-break ANY rule of the forum

I DID however, trail of the original topic a bit, this I formally admit, and I apologize formally for this.

Overall, I was quite bloody correct towards everyone and everything, I think, sir.
But of course, you DO have the power to ban or suspend me.
Or to remove this very post.
I just think, it would not be correct.
In many ways.
But then again, who am I...

If you want to discuss this in all respect, politeness and maturity, then I am all yours, good Sir.
_Req.

[studiot]

58 minutes ago, The_Questioner said:

-break ANY rule of the forum

Hmm debatable.

I looked at this earlier but my impression was there was far too much off topic dross to be worth bothering with.

However since you have posted this in applied Mathematics and I am a retired Mathematician I will offer answers to both your questions.

1) I can see no relaible connection between Mathematics and Religion.

2) Since we are where we are the probability of it happening is exactly 1.
However for probabilities of 1 and zero there are three very and fundamentally different meanings of the phrase probability is exactly 1.

Do you understand enough probability to know the implications of this and can you tell me which one of these three you are refering to ?

[The_Questioner]

Thank you for replying, sir.

The question was more: how big is the chance that all things considered, this is all just random luck.
Therefore, it was not quite about religion per se.
Though yes, I DO believe in a higher something, this question was NOT stated from that position, but from a position that sees both outcomes as equally possible or not possible.
This "god" does not have to be "God", or something divine-like.
As i said, it can be just as well an alien playing Sims.

Now, I posted it here, as the question (calculating a percentage), is basically math, and thus this seemed the most logical place.

I am no mathematician nor scientist, hence I came here for "the answer", where "the answer" would have been a probability, and not a God-set truth or scientific FACT.

I do understand the fundamental truth, that there are a ton of unknowns, therefore an absolute answer is "impossible", however, it could have been a nice approximation, sir.

 

What precisely do you mean with the three probabilities, sir?

And this, I reckon, answers your question about my knowledge of these probabilities.

 

Again, good sir, thank you for your post.

PS: nearly forgot this part:

"Hmm debatable."
Where precisely did I make a "breach" into the site CoC/rule set, please?

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by The_Questioner
Fixing sentence, adding explanation.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, The_Questioner said:

"Hmm debatable."
Where precisely did I make a "breach" into the site CoC/rule set, please?

All your posts include too much off topic material.

You have yourself pointed out that you asked two specific questions.

Comments should be largely limited to addressing (replies to) these.

Something like this is good and enhances the flow of conversation (oils the wheels) but not the paragraphs you have added.

4 hours ago, The_Questioner said:

PS: nearly forgot this part:

 

On 22/12/2018 at 6:25 PM, The_Questioner said:

"How important is mathematics to you, what place has mathematics to you, and how far does mathematics have an impact on your thinking/accepting?"

Question 1 was not about probabilities it was about your responders (me in this case) so I told you that Mathematics was pretty important to me.
My apologies that I said retired Mathematician.
I should have said retired Applied Mathematician.

 

4 hours ago, The_Questioner said:

What precisely do you mean with the three probabilities, sir?

And this, I reckon, answers your question about my knowledge of these probabilities.

Yes it answers my question and is the right way to carry on a discussion +1

Read again what I said because I didn't say there were three probabilities - How can they be since I also defined them to be equal to 1?

What I said was ther are three different meaning to stating the probability is 1.

This is only true of (applies to) the probability values 1 and zero, it is not true for other intermediate values of probability eg p = 0.75

By assigning a probability of 0.75 to some possible outcome, say X,

you are automatically saying that there is at least one other possible outcome, say Y,  (then with a probability of 0.25).

But by assigning a probability of 1 you are saying there are no other possible outcomes.

There is more but it is too late to go into more detail tonight so I will let you think about this first.

[Sensei]

On 22.12.2018 at 8:18 PM, The_Questioner said:

With all due respect: I asked a mathematical chance of everything being just pure luck.

To be able to calculate mathematical chance, you need to have enough or the all data about the subject.

 

For instance, chance to win in roulette is 1/37 = ~2.7(027)% (if there is one "0" field), and 1/38 = ~2.63158% (in American roulette version, with two zeros, "0" and "00" fields).

By placing bets on more fields, it's possible for mathematician/scientist/intellectualist, to calculate probability of winning particular round of game.

The more complex system, or game, the harder is to calculate probability.

Imagine calculation of probability of roulette game in which you don't know how many fields there is available on playfield. It can be from 1 to +infinity (only integers).

 

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

To be able to calculate mathematical chance, you need to have enough or the all data about the subject.

.

 

Statistics and probability doesn't work like that.

That is the purpose of Bayes theorem and Bayesian statistics..
This even allows you to calculate the probability of something that has never happened before.

[Sensei]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Statistics and probability doesn't work like that.

That is the purpose of Bayes theorem and Bayesian statistics..
This even allows you to calculate the probability of something that has never happened before.

You don't agree with my statement in which I said "you need to have enough or the all data about the subject. ".. ?

Bayes formulated his theorem in 1763 year. Calculate probability of e.g. decay of neutron in unstable isotope, in state of knowledge of 1763 year, in which you don't even know what "radioactive decay", "neutron", or "isotope" even means..

[The_Questioner]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

All your posts include too much off topic material....

 

(Apologgies, I cut the text a bit, to save space)
My initial post is pretty straight forward, I think, sir.
But we did digress from main topic, that I admit too.
And thus, true, there's a lot of stuff that is unrelated.
I admitted to this in the lengthy post.
But, sir, though not an excuse, only an explanation, I got there through others, in part...

True, there are three meanings to it, you said, sir, to the probabilities.
I made a bad line turning that into three probabilities.
My mistake.
I have issues at times to express myself in the right way.
Now, I did not give any values to anything, no data, this because I have no idea as to how to fill this in.
I am neither a mathematician nor scientist.
I (literally) hoped someone could fill that in, sir.

As for outcomes, I cannot give a value, as that, I feel, would influence the outcome, while I wanted a fair one.
Unless, I misinterpreted this...
 

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

To be able to calculate mathematical chance, you need to have enough or the all data about the subject...

Thank you.
Very kind of you, sir.

Thank you all for your time, I really appreciate it!

Kindest regards:
The_Req

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

You don't agree with my statement in which I said "you need to have enough or the all data about the subject. ".. ?

Bayes formulated his theorem in 1763 year. Calculate probability of e.g. decay of neutron in unstable isotope, in state of knowledge of 1763 year, in which you don't even know what "radioactive decay", "neutron", or "isotope" even means..

No I don't agree.

On the basis that you consider a theorem that is a couple of hundred years old to be wrong, perhaps you don't agree with Pythagoras' Theorem, which is a couple of thousand years old?

Consider these examples for a moment:

Firstly

What is the probability that someone will nuke New York in 2019?

Note this has never happened so there is no prior data.

 

Secondly if I  give you all the race results at Kempton Park for the last century you will have lots of data.

So what would the probability of 'upshot' winning the 4.15 this coming Saturday 5th January 2019 be?

 

Both of these questions rquire Bayes methods to answer them.

Firstly

What is the probability that someone will nuke New York in 2019?

Note this has never happened so there is no prior data.

 

Secondly I  give you all the race results at Kempton Park for the last century you will have lots of data.

So what would the probability of upshot winning the 4.15 this coming Saturday 5th January 2019 be?

 

Both of these questions rquire Bayes methods to answer them.

Firstly

What is the probability that someone will nuke New York in 2019?

Note this has never happened so there is no prior data.

 

Secondly I  give you all the race results at Kempton Park for the last century you will have lots of data.

So what would the probability of upshot winning the 4.15 this coming Saturday 5th January 2019 be?

 

Both of these questions rquire Bayes methods to answer them.

9 hours ago, The_Questioner said:

True, there are three meanings to it, you said, sir, to the probabilities

I said I would give more so:
 

Remember that probabilities refer to a proposed future event.

This is because, as I said there are three types of probability commonly known as

1) Prior (or a priori) probability

2) Empirical probability and

3) Intuitive or subjective probability.

For a probability of  X = exactly 1 these mean

1) X must always occur.

2) means that X has always occured in the past, but that it does not mean that X will (ever) occur again in the future.

3) Means that; based on additional information, not direct observation of previous trials, we make an informed guess that X will occur.

 

How are we getting on?

 

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

perhaps you don't agree with Pythagoras' Theorem, which is a couple of thousand years old?

Please don't be ridiculous.. I am using Pythagoras' Theorem couple days per day. In e.g. normalization of vectors, calculation of distance between two points in 2D/3D, or angle between them, etc. etc. basic programming things. We are talking about analogous situation to trying to use Pythagoras' Theorem to calculate distance, when you have no data about positions of points. Apply Pythagoras' Theorem in situation when you have a, b unknown variables, to calculate c..

7 hours ago, studiot said:

What is the probability that someone will nuke New York in 2019?

Note this has never happened so there is no prior data.

But you have some data about the subject: you know what is radioactivity, you know what is fission and fusion, you know how many people is on the planet (potential terrorist), you know the ways somebody can acquire Uranium or other fissile material, you know the ways somebody can bring bomb on the place.. etc. etc.

What is the probability that black hole will destroy Earth, in XIX century state of knowledge, when they didn't even know what is black hole.. ?

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Secondly if I  give you all the race results at Kempton Park for the last century you will have lots of data.

So what would the probability of 'upshot' winning the 4.15 this coming Saturday 5th January 2019 be?

What is "Kempton Park"? LOL!

I will have a lot of data in game which I (possibly) don't know what are even rules of the game..

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Secondly I  give you all the race results at Kempton Park for the last century you will have lots of data.

...but results from them are not interconnected.. If I would acquire knowledge about the all horses, I could make senseful predictions (database of their results on graph, and how they changed with horse age)..

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Sensei

[The_Questioner]

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Remember that probabilities refer to a proposed future event.

This is because, as I said there are three types of probability commonly known as

1) Prior (or a priori) probability

2) Empirical probability and

3) Intuitive or subjective probability.

For a probability of  X = exactly 1 these mean

1) X must always occur.

2) means that X has always occured in the past, but that it does not mean that X will (ever) occur again in the future.

3) Means that; based on additional information, not direct observation of previous trials, we make an informed guess that X will occur.

 

How are we getting on?

 

Very well, thank you (as to: how are we getting on).
Kind of you to ask, sir.

Theoretical-Subjective probability, would be my answer.
We do not have the means to calculate a true outcome, ALL the data required, nor the openmindedness.

I hoped for an approximate, based on our incomplete data and abilities thusfar.
It was, for the record, for personal use, not to shove it in someone's face and go like: "See, even Maths yapyapety-yap."

Does this answer your question, Sir?

Addendum:
I will not engaged in the battle between you two, have fun there, you two.  
Or did you had something else in mind with your question?

Edited December 25, 2018 by The_Questioner
Addendum added