Statistics, God and Estimating

[ReinyDays]

Such silliness ...God is a doctrine ... a lifestyle ...
"Love your brother as we love ourselves" isn't science ...

 

[scruffy]

Such silliness ...God is a doctrine ... a lifestyle ...

Sounds like your mind's made up.

"Love your brother as we love ourselves" isn't science ...

Sure it is. You run around killing everyone, see how long you live.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sounds like your mind's made up.



Sure it is. You run around killing everyone, see how long you live.

Yes, I have ... and murder isn't neighborly ... not just because the Bible says so ... ask any heathen ...

 

[scruffy]

Sounds like you believe GOD always existed.

I'm not gonna say what God is or isn't, I'm not that smart. I believe in gathering information using the scientific method, and maybe someday we'll find the right question to ask.

 

[scruffy]

Sounds like you believe GOD always existed.

Right now, I believe that our subjective awareness is an expansion of physical time. I don't like the word "exist", it has too many meanings. As a (bio)physicist I like words like stability and repeatability.

The point of my example about noise is, white noise has a completely flat frequency spectrum and zero auto-correlation. It is, "completely random", it has a 0-mean normal distribution. And yet, the minute you can identify that the distribution exists (without even sampling from it), you have gained a unit of information. Why? Plug it into the formula, use information theory. H = - sigma (p ln p). Every distribution has positive non-zero entropy. On the other hand with 0 probability we get a ln(0) term which is nonsense - so 0 probability is "undefined".

Imagine there is a gumball machine that only dispenses green gum. You get a green piece with probability 1, so you get ZERO information when that happens, because - use the formula - ln 1 is 0.

But now the very first time you get a red piece, you realize there's a distribution with (at least) two possibilities. At that moment you have obtained a full unit of information. You don't know what the probabilities are yet, but if you guess and say they're equal, then - use the formula - H = 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.

Now, every time you get a new piece of gum, you can update your belief about the probability, using Bayes' rule. You do not know (ever) if your distribution is complete. That is the point of Feynman's "all possible paths". The best you can get is a high confidence level that your.model describes the data.

If you have an infinite number of paths and they're all uncorrelated (white noise), you can use them as an orthogonal set of basis functions for your sample space. However if they're correlated you introduce constraints. The number of states/paths shrinks. This is what happens in entanglement, and the same thing happens any time you have correlation - including the long range correlations in the chaotic systems I showed in the other thread.

Up until a couple of years ago you had to extract the distribution by repeated measurement, but now we don't have to do that anymore. Today we can use information geometry to fit an unknown distribution, and we can determine if something is chaotic from a single time series.

It turns out, evolution has chaotic attractors, but they operate on time scales of millions of years. The guesstimate is 2 million years between gene duplication events. 43% of the human genome is thought to arise from gene duplication.

 

[alang1216]

We all agree there is this enormous universe, Chem Engineer happens to be brilliant. There are important questions. Can the universe create itself? This leads to if it can't who can create a universe? Then well ahead of evolution, who knows for sure that a collection of minerals simply self-created a life form? A very important book was written by Professor Schopf called the Cradle of life.

It is an enormous universe and I'll take your word that ChemEngineer is brilliant.

• Can the universe create itself? I believe the jury is still out on this. Was the BB an act of creation or just a door opening between rooms?
• This leads to if it can't who can create a universe? Again, I believe the jury is still out on this. We can't see past the BB so we have no evidence to go on, only speculation.
• Then well ahead of evolution, who knows for sure that a collection of minerals simply self-created a life form? No evidence for how this happened. There are plenty of theories as to how life could arise from entirely natural forces but we may never know for sure.

 

[Hafar1014]

While some might argue that this post belongs in a religion forum, I wish to point out that it is purely scientific, based on modern biochemistry coupled with statistics. The correspondence between science and its Creator continues to unfold.
--------------------------------------------------------------

A great many people get wrapped up in definitions that are erroneous.
Mathematicians have been known to say, "Nothing is impossible unless its probability is zero."
While that sounds plausible, let's look at reality.
Distinguished mathematician, Emile Borel, defined "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 50th or less.
Ten to the 50 is 1 followed by fifty zeroes.

Before reading any further, what volume do you estimate 10 to the 50 small marbles would occupy?
/
/
/
/
/
Ten to the 50 marbles 1 cm in diameter would fill 37,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth.

So who thinks it is possible to select one out of 37,400 billion billion spheres, and from that one enormous sphere full of 1 cm marbles, blindfolded, on your first and only try, get the unique marble?

Titin is the largest protein in the human body, at 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence.

I did the calculation to evaluate the probability of titin's original synthesis from any natural mechanism you can imagine, being 1/20 amino acids selected one at a time taken to the 38,138th power times two other factors which produce a probability for titin's original synthesis of 1 in about 10 to the 72,000th power. Those two other factors are the exclusive selection of L amino acids and not R amino acids, which works out to 1/2 to the 38,138th. Similarly, amino acids can bond by peptide bonds, where the -OH radical links to an -H radical, or a non-peptide bond, where it does not. This constitutes another factor of 1/2 to the 38,138th power.

This is insanely beyond impossible and titin is only one of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body.

Youre in the context of paradox

 

[Hafar1014]

I would assign those same odds against the great worldwide flood and Jonah's big fish stories being true.

There was flood at the end of the the age

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm not gonna say what God is or isn't, I'm not that smart. I believe in gathering information using the scientific method, and maybe someday we'll find the right question to ask.

You're right ...

Sure it is. You run around killing everyone, see how long you live.

You're not very smart ...

Science doesn't define good and evil ... that's strictly philosophy and cannot be addressed by scientific method ... gather all the evidence you want, you'll never ask the right question ... look for God in your brother's eyes ... "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." --- Matthew 18:20 ...

You can ask all the questions you want ... but with your eyes closed, you'll never see ...

 

[ReinyDays]

It is an enormous universe and I'll take your word that ChemEngineer is brilliant.

• Can the universe create itself? I believe the jury is still out on this. Was the BB an act of creation or just a door opening between rooms?
• This leads to if it can't who can create a universe? Again, I believe the jury is still out on this. We can't see past the BB so we have no evidence to go on, only speculation.
• Then well ahead of evolution, who knows for sure that a collection of minerals simply self-created a life form? No evidence for how this happened. There are plenty of theories as to how life could arise from entirely natural forces but we may never know for sure.

I think the mistake both sides make here is using the wrong science ...

Big bang, evolution, relativity ... these things never come up in meteorology ... so who cares? ... the science that comes closest to the Bible would be Sociology ... the study of society ...

I hate paraphrasing Marxism rhetoric, so if you don't like the Bible's morals ... fine ... we have others ...

 

[alang1216]

There was flood at the end of the the age

There are plenty of local floods every day but the only global flood was at the end of the ice age.

 

[alang1216]

I think the mistake both sides make here is using the wrong science ...

Big bang, evolution, relativity ... these things never come up in meteorology ... so who cares? ... the science that comes closest to the Bible would be Sociology ... the study of society ...

I hate paraphrasing Marxism rhetoric, so if you don't like the Bible's morals ... fine ... we have others ...

I'm not sure what the weather has to do with any of this but the sciences that come closest to the Bible, besides Sociology, would be Psychology, Archeology, and Textual Criticism.

 

[Hafar1014]

There are plenty of local floods every day but the only global flood was at the end of the ice age.

That timing is just right
During the most recent Ice Age (18,000 to 13,000 years ago), and probably in previous Ice Ages, cataclysmic floods inundated portions of the Pacific Northwest. These Ice Age Floods originated primarily from Glacial Lake Missoula, but also from Lake Bonneville and perhaps as sub-glacial outbursts from under the continental ice sheet.

When part of that Cordilleran Ice Sheet pushed into the Lake Pend Oreille area of the Idaho Panhandle, it created an ice dam over 40 miles wide and 3000 feet thick, that blocked the Clark Fork River drainage and impounded Glacial Lake Missoula. At its largest, the lake was more than 2,000 feet deep at the ice dam and held over 500 cubic miles of water—as much as Great Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.

There are plenty of local floods every day but the only global flood was at the end of the ice age.

The younger dyras was world wide and the timing was right

 

[alang1216]

That timing is just right
During the most recent Ice Age (18,000 to 13,000 years ago), and probably in previous Ice Ages, cataclysmic floods inundated portions of the Pacific Northwest. These Ice Age Floods originated primarily from Glacial Lake Missoula, but also from Lake Bonneville and perhaps as sub-glacial outbursts from under the continental ice sheet.

Enormous but not global. The closest to a global flood was the rise in sea level but that was so slow it might have gone unnoticed from generation to generation.

View attachment 1221215
The younger dyras was world wide and the timing was right

The timing for what? It was well before Noah's flood.

 

[Hafar1014]

Enormous but not global. The closest to a global flood was the rise in sea level but that was so slow it might have gone unnoticed from generation to generation.


The timing for what? It was well before Noah's flood.

Noahs flood is an allegory based on the past

 

[scruffy]

Science doesn't define good and evil

I define good and evil.

And I don't need a book to help with that.

I have nothing against those who do, though. If you prefer someone else's value system, knock yourself out.

I look at it this way: God is either everything or He is nothing. You can't have a God that's only in charge of part of the world, that wouldn't make any sense.

 

[alang1216]

Noahs flood is an allegory based on the past

Isn't the whole Bible an allegory based on the past?

 

[Robert W]

Question: is there any information in white noise?

That question relates to the creation of the universe in what way?

 

[Robert W]

I look at it this way: God is either everything or He is nothing. You can't have a God that's only in charge of part of the world, that wouldn't make any sense.

I am not claiming GOD is either. Humans are in charge of the world. GOD created our universe. A father coming home to feed his kids created them.

 

[Robert W]

I think the mistake both sides make here is using the wrong science ...

Science has broad welcoming arms for all humans.