God's Odds

[npbreakthrough]

My goal here is to see if there were any way to formulate an equation based on these rules....

 

1. in a limited universe ( i know the odds are always "1" in an infinite universe) what may be the odds of 8 planets circling one sun, and one planet in the "Goldilocks" zone of its star, and also the odds of this solar system being outside the distance of some cataclysmic event ( IE solar flare, black hole etc) for long enough to account for our present circumstance (life, intelligent life)

 

2. using the terms from #1 as our target , what would be the amount of energy needed to assure that these odds happened at least once

 

 

3. the reason im proposing this problem , is of course completely theoretical and based on the assumption of a creator, i know this blurs the lines between subjects....but trust me this is all math........im asking because if we are to assume a creator, we must assume he is a mathematician of the purest form, so, if we were a god how much explosion would we need to produce enough matter , bringing the odds of such fortuitous circumstance ( of #1) to reality......

 

4. wouldnt it be something if the amount of energy needed to produce these results was the same amount of energy that is in our universe?

 

5. i dont assume that we know how much energy is in the universe, and wouldn't want to burden anybody with trying to weigh all the mass in it either,.....just wanting to know what kind of math would be needed to start this kind of inquiry

[DrRocket]

My goal here is to see if there were any way to formulate an equation based on these rules....

 

1. in a limited universe ( i know the odds are always "1" in an infinite universe) what may be the odds of 8 planets circling one sun, and one planet in the "Goldilocks" zone of its star, and also the odds of this solar system being outside the distance of some cataclysmic event ( IE solar flare, black hole etc) for long enough to account for our present circumstance (life, intelligent life)

 

2. using the terms from #1 as our target , what would be the amount of energy needed to assure that these odds happened at least once

 

 

3. the reason im proposing this problem , is of course completely theoretical and based on the assumption of a creator, i know this blurs the lines between subjects....but trust me this is all math........im asking because if we are to assume a creator, we must assume he is a mathematician of the purest form, so, if we were a god how much explosion would we need to produce enough matter , bringing the odds of such fortuitous circumstance ( of #1) to reality......

 

4. wouldnt it be something if the amount of energy needed to produce these results was the same amount of energy that is in our universe?

 

5. i dont assume that we know how much energy is in the universe, and wouldn't want to burden anybody with trying to weigh all the mass in it either,.....just wanting to know what kind of math would be needed to start this kind of inquiry

 

This is not a mathematical issue and no "amount" of mathematics will help you.

 

No one knows how much energy is in the universe. There are legitimate points of view that hold that it may well be zero.

 

Energy in the universe has no clear connection to the structure of the solar system.

 

Existence or non-existence of God is not a scientific question.

 

Your approach is going nowhere.

[ydoaPs]

The jump directly from improbability to "God did it" is not a valid one.

[michel123456]

IMHO

_the probability for us to be a random event in the story of the Universe is close to 100%.

_and the probability for us to be the goal of the Universe is close to zero.

[swansont]

I agree with DrRocket, this is not really a math problem. To the extent that one can apply math, what you can say is that the probability of a past event occurring is 100%.

[npbreakthrough]

This is not a mathematical issue and no "amount" of mathematics will help you.

 

No one knows how much energy is in the universe. There are legitimate points of view that hold that it may well be zero.

 

Energy in the universe has no clear connection to the structure of the solar system.

 

Existence or non-existence of God is not a scientific question.

 

Your approach is going nowhere.

 

thanks for your reply,

 

i tried to word this in a way that wouldnt confuse the issue, sorry if i have,

i understand we dont have any of the variables or numbers needed to actually quantify the problem

but probability is very much a mathematical issue, so i have to disagree with you there

i understand the relationship between science and faith and meant no attempt to confuse either issue. but even a zero-energy universe must still account for the initial energy needed for inflation, so the beginning of the universe still remains something outside scientific explanation, and therefore can still be considered "supernatural".

 

i fear i cant go much more into this question under a math forum. im sure these are much better suited for physics or philosophy

and im not trying to make any jumps from improbability to "god did it".

 

but if anybody could help me with one more item.........is there anywhere i can find such statistics on the surrounding stars or solar systems so i can look into the probability of things like stars with/without planets, etc

 

once again thanks to everybody for replying ,

[DrRocket]

but probability is very much a mathematical issue, so i have to disagree with you there

 

I am more than a little bit familiar with the theory of probability.

 

Probability theory is the most misapplied discipline in mathematics. You are attempting to misapply it.

 

You do not have a mathematical problem.

 

Your idea is going nowhere.

Edited June 1, 2011 by DrRocket

[Spyman]

is there anywhere i can find such statistics on the surrounding stars or solar systems so i can look into the probability of things like stars with/without planets, etc

"If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space." Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.

 

But what I think you might be looking for is the Drake equation.

[npbreakthrough]

I am more than a little bit familiar with the theory of probability.

 

Probability theory is the most misapplied discipline in mathematics. You are attempting to misapply it.

 

You do not have a mathematical problem.

 

Your idea is going nowhere.

 

okay, thanks again for your reply, allow me to scale this down a bit so we can forget the "god" word, and do away with the substance of the universe

 

suppose we put a jar of marbles with a grenade in the middle of a 20x20 ft room, and put a target at the top of one of the corners

 

what kind of formula could i use to try and predict how many marbles,size of explosion, and attempts will be needed before a marble hits the bulls eye?

 

"If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space." Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.

 

But what I think you might be looking for is the Drake equation.

 

thanks spyman, the drake equation is exactly what i was looking for, along with the fermi paradox

[DrRocket]

 

 

thanks spyman, the drake equation is exactly what i was looking for, along with the fermi paradox

 

 

 

 

From the Wiki link to the Drake equation:

 

" As T.J. Nelson states:^[24]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

 

Likewise, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated:^[25]

 

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless..."

 

From Feynmam:

 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

 

You are fooling yourself. Your approach is going nowhere. Fast.

 

 

 

 

 

[npbreakthrough]

From the Wiki link to the Drake equation:

 

" As T.J. Nelson states:^[24]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

 

Likewise, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated:^[25]

 

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless..."

 

From Feynmam:

 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

 

You are fooling yourself. Your approach is going nowhere. Fast.

 

 

 

 

wow, thanks again for the reply,

my reply to spyman was just to thank him for letting me know the actual name of such previous inquiries, i am under no

assumption that the drake equation can really solve anything i always read the criticisms of theory first.......

 

also, from my initial post "5. i dont assume that we know how much energy is in the universe, and wouldn't want to burden anybody with trying to weigh all the mass in it either,.....just wanting to know what kind of math would be needed to start this kind of inquiry"

so therefore, thanks spyman

 

before i replied to to spy man, i did reply to your last post, again if you could help me with this it would be greatly appreciated,

 

"okay, thanks again for your reply, allow me to scale this down a bit so we can forget the "god" word, and do away with the substance of the universe

 

suppose we put a jar of marbles with a grenade in the middle of a 20x20 ft room, and put a target at the top of one of the corners

 

what kind of formula could i use to try and predict how many marbles,size of explosion, and attempts will be needed before a marble hits the bulls eye?"

[michel123456]

okay, thanks again for your reply, allow me to scale this down a bit so we can forget the "god" word, and do away with the substance of the universe

 

suppose we put a jar of marbles with a grenade in the middle of a 20x20 ft room, and put a target at the top of one of the corners

 

what kind of formula could i use to try and predict how many marbles,size of explosion, and attempts will be needed before a marble hits the bulls eye?

 

I don't know.

But i think even Dr Rocket would agree that over an infinite number of attempts, the probability for hitting the bulls eye is 1.

The interesting thing is that once the bulls eye has been hit, the number of attempts is finite.

 

So, looking afterwards at the result, one could say that there is no need for an infinite number of attempts. A finite number would also reach the bulls eye.

[DrRocket]

I don't know.

But i think even Dr Rocket would agree that over an infinite number of attempts, the probability for hitting the bulls eye is 1.

The interesting thing is that once the bulls eye has been hit, the number of attempts is finite.

 

So, looking afterwards at the result, one could say that there is no need for an infinite number of attempts. A finite number would also reach the bulls eye.

 

But you have no a priori idea what that finite number will be.

 

Even a probability zero event can occur a finite (or actually infinite) number of times in infinitely many trials.

 

So, your logic doesn't help.

[npbreakthrough]

But you have no a priori idea what that finite number will be.

 

Even a probability zero event can occur a finite (or actually infinite) number of times in infinitely many trials.

 

So, your logic doesn't help.

 

what if we......used 1 inch marbles 2 for every square inch of room, kept the amount of explosives at the adequate level to propel each marble to atleast one wall, and gradually reduced the number of marbles each trial by one until we had only one marble left, and

charted results looking for the trial number when the marbles ceased to hit the bulls eye for good? of course......we would have to decide how large the bullseye would be........

[michel123456]

But you have no a priori idea what that finite number will be.

 

Even a probability zero event can occur a finite (or actually infinite) number of times in infinitely many trials.

 

So, your logic doesn't help.

 

It helps in the sense that over an indefinite period of time, the random event will occur very surely. There is not even any need for an infinite universe in space. Infinite time should be enough.

 

In our universe which seems so large, and considering the huge period of time since the Big Bang, one should not be surprised for any random event to occur.

 

And if one considers that true randomness is not exactly what happens, but only mutualy compatible random events occur, it reduces tremendously the amount of possible occuring events.

[DrRocket]

It helps in the sense that over an indefinite period of time, the random event will occur very surely. There is not even any need for an infinite universe in space. Infinite time should be enough.

 

In our universe which seems so large, and considering the huge period of time since the Big Bang, one should not be surprised for any random event to occur.

 

And if one considers that true randomness is not exactly what happens, but only mutualy compatible random events occur, it reduces tremendously the amount of possible occuring events.

 

You need to learn some mathematics.

[michel123456]

You need to learn some mathematics.

 

Show me where i got wrong.

[npbreakthrough]

Show me where i got wrong.

 

what if we......used 1 inch marbles 2 for every square inch of room, kept the amount of explosives at the adequate level to propel each marble to atleast one wall, and gradually reduced the number of marbles each trial by one until we had only one marble left, and

charted results looking for the trial number when the marbles ceased to hit the bulls eye for good? of course......we would have to decide how large the bullseye would be........which brings me full circle to how we would try and quantify the odds of the fortuitous event.....determining the size of the bullseye is the same as trying to find the odds of a life allowing planet ..........DAMNIT......DAMNIT........i understand now, Drrocket, sorry for wasting your time.....

[DrRocket]

Show me where i got wrong.

 

Right here:

 

 

I don't know.

But i think even Dr Rocket would agree that over an infinite number of attempts, the probability for hitting the bulls eye is 1.

The interesting thing is that once the bulls eye has been hit, the number of attempts is finite.

 

So, looking afterwards at the result, one could say that there is no need for an infinite number of attempts. A finite number would also reach the bulls eye.

 

 

You are making nonsense sentences. Until you take the time to learn the requisite mathematics communication is impossible. Mathematics makes very precise use of terms, and the terminology in probability is just as precise as that in other branches. Unfortunately many terms have everyday meanings that are suggestive of the technical meaning, but still they don't mean what you think.

 

For instance "probability 1" does not mean that the event must occur, only that it occurs "almost surely" and "almost surely" means except on a set of measure 0. "Measure 0" has a precise meaning as well, but you will need to learn some more mathematics to understand it.

 

The biggest problem is using probability theory in the complete absence of a probability space. There is no meaning in that situation.

[michel123456]

Υοu are making nonsense sentences.

 

I am really sorry for that.

 

What would have been the correct sentence?

over an infinite number of attempts, ...[insert here your correction].

Edited June 2, 2011 by michel123456