Against all odds!

[Urban Ranger]

A real life example that's somewhat related to the topic.

There was this man who had a steel pole that pierced through his body. It went in through his right armpit and came out at the left side of his neck. Incredibly, the pole did not damage any of his important organs and it did not break any major blood vessels.

Strange things happen only rarely, so you notice them.

An astrologer makes 100 predictions and fails on 99% of them. Somehow he's still vaulted to have some kind of mysterious power because people forget about his failures.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Jaybe
We will all probably be RE-learning how combat works for awhile, now that 1.52 has changed the combat system (i.e., a damaged unit now does the same damage per round as a full-strength unit).

Trying to go back on topic, i find this very annoying as undamaged units with a little luck can chomp through a couple of healed units. i lost 6 macemen attacking a city held by 1 longbow\1 archer as they just kept on fighting. i even had the cities defences down to 0%, and had city raider on 2 of those macemen...

[Aro]

Well, apart all those arguments, sh*t happens, and part of all well succeeded strategy and good planning *is* to be prepared. I mean, if you go to war, you need what you need... and 30% more, well located and so.

[Diadem]

When you analyze the "throwing cards out of an airplane" problem, you need to understand the physics involved. Statistical physics is not the easiest branch of physics.

The motion of the cards is completely determined by Newton's Laws. They are deterministic. If we knew the exact state of the universe at the moment of throwing the cards (so the exact position and and energy of every subatomic particle in the universe) and we had a big enough computer, we could calculate exactly how the cards would land. Probability of the cards landing like that would then be 1, any other ordering would have probabilty 0.

However, we obviously do not know the location and energy of every single subatomic particle in the universe. Nor do we own computers fast enough to calculate this problem. So we have to make assumptions, and simplifications.

This is the realm of statistical, or thermal, physics. You have a huge number of particles, and a huge number of states in which each particle can be. By making some simple assumptions about the behavior of this particles, you can make surprisingly accurate predictions about what will happen.

Consider the problem of dropping cards. We can calculate the odds of them reordering explicitly. We will attempt this experiment at stable atmospheric conditions, and we will fly the non-moving helicopter at such an altitude that the cards will spread out over an area of about a square kilometer.

Let us now make the assumption that the cards will land in an area of exactly 1x1 kilometer, and that they can land at every spot with equal probability. This assumption is, obviously, incorrect. The area will be a circle, not a square, and locations closer to the center will be more likely. Still, this assumption should give a reasonably close estimate, and if it is off, it will be in underestimating the probability.

Assume the cards are 5x5 cm2 and define a stack of cards to be 'on top of eachother' if there is a single verticle line which intersects all cards. This means all centers of the cards have to be within the same 5x5 cm2 square.

The first card to land, has to land somewhere. The rest of the cards have to land within 2.5 cm of this card in order for them to form a single stack. So we can divide our square km in 400 million 5x5 squares, and each of the remaning 51 cards has to land in the exact same square our first card landed in. That gives us a 1 / 400.000.000 ^51 probability of the cards forming a single stack.

Now, the stack needs to have the right order. Since every card is unique, there are 52! different ways of ordering a deck of cards.

So the probability of a stack of cards reforming itself when it's dropped from an airplane is roughly 1 / (400.000.000^51 * 52!) = 2.4 ^ -507

That's pretty slim. But it's still possible! If you fill the entire visible universe with helicopters dropping cards (assuming 2 planets per stare, earth-sized on average, and 1 helicopter per 100 meter dropping 1 deck of cards every second) you'd only have to continue 7.7 ^468 years on average for it to happen once. Unfortunately current scientific theories project to death of the universe well before that date.

So on the whole it's pretty unlikely that this will ever happen. But it's still possible!

[wattro]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Different situation. the outcome already exists. weather or not the someone finds it or not. this winning ticket was created and didnt pop into existance...

yes, just like flipping the cards out of the plane creates a result... just like flipping a coin creates a result. They are created the same way a lottery result is created. They are results of an event.

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
As i said, statistics can show what has happaned. any statistics on something that hasnt happaned is pure guessing with maybe some math to make it look good. without a reason\external force that wants them to or is influencing things towards that to come back together, the cards wont. as only sentient's or automated systems setup by those sentient's can influence things with a will(care about the cards coming together) if neither influence things the current way things works dictate that they will spread out. i say a sentient being set things up to work against the cards. of course this opens up a WHOLE new debate that should be fun

I am trying to understand what is sentient? none of the forces in play when a deck of cards are thrown out of an airplane (except the pilot and the deck thrower) are sentient. All forces that act on those cards do not care if the cards spread out or spread in, if they separate or do not. If the force was sentient and wanted to separate the cards, it would increase its force if it needed to. That simply does not happen. If a sentient being (assuming you mean the pilot of the deck thrower) are working against the cards, then that is a bad sample which cannot be used - it will pollute and defy any statistical experiment.

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Edit: my post is out of order...yet when i edit it, it shows fine. funny things happan all the time i guess

Same thing happened to me... Long posts tend to do that, I guess...

I'm not even going to tackle the subject of origin of the universe. It happened and no one can specifically answer what happenened before the big bang. For all I can guess, time and dimensions could have been the only thing that existed, all separately. Perhaps a collision between a # of dimensions created a 3-dimensional (as far as we can see) universe for us to occupy. Perhaps some external force created the big bang in a lab.

/ianaap

[Kataphraktoi]

Well, apart all those arguments, sh*t happens, and part of all well succeeded strategy and good planning *is* to be prepared. I mean, if you go to war, you need what you need... and 30% more, well located and so.

Ive been using overwhelming numbers at least 3x1 in cIV sofar to make sure i actually win. or at least,3x1 in the local area. the fact i can do combined arms a little bit is excellent

Consider the problem of dropping cards. We can calculate the odds of them reordering explicitly. We will attempt this experiment at stable atmospheric conditions, and we will fly the non-moving helicopter at such an altitude that the cards will spread out over an area of about a square kilometer.

Let us now make the assumption that the cards will land in an area of exactly 1x1 kilometer, and that they can land at every spot with equal probability. This assumption is, obviously, incorrect. The area will be a circle, not a square, and locations closer to the center will be more likely. Still, this assumption should give a reasonably close estimate, and if it is off, it will be in underestimating the probability.

Assume the cards are 5x5 cm2 and define a stack of cards to be 'on top of eachother' if there is a single verticle line which intersects all cards. This means all centers of the cards have to be within the same 5x5 cm2 square.

The first card to land, has to land somewhere. The rest of the cards have to land within 2.5 cm of this card in order for them to form a single stack. So we can divide our square km in 400 million 5x5 squares, and each of the remaning 51 cards has to land in the exact same square our first card landed in. That gives us a 1 / 400.000.000 ^51 probability of the cards forming a single stack.

Now, the stack needs to have the right order. Since every card is unique, there are 52! different ways of ordering a deck of cards.

So the probability of a stack of cards reforming itself when it's dropped from an airplane is roughly 1 / (400.000.000^51 * 52!) = 2.4 ^ -507

That's pretty slim. But it's still possible! If you fill the entire visible universe with helicopters dropping cards (assuming 2 planets per stare, earth-sized on average, and 1 helicopter per 100 meter dropping 1 deck of cards every second) you'd only have to continue 7.7 ^468 years on average for it to happen once. Unfortunately current scientific theories project to death of the universe well before that date.

So on the whole it's pretty unlikely that this will ever happen. But it's still possible!

hmmm...that is more what im looking at, some actuall numbers. re-reading the last posts, i think i may change my stance here a little (is there a formula for indicating the likelyhood of a poster to actualy change his opinions?i wonder if THATS possible ) at any rate, i will be re-examining this

final parting shot, and now not in reference to the deck being impossible to rearange.

I am trying to understand what is sentient? none of the forces in play when a deck of cards are thrown out of an airplane (except the pilot and the deck thrower) are sentient. All forces that act on those cards do not care if the cards spread out or spread in, if they separate or do not. If the force was sentient and wanted to separate the cards, it would increase its force if it needed to. That simply does not happen. If a sentient being (assuming you mean the pilot of the deck thrower) are working against the cards, then that is a bad sample which cannot be used - it will pollute and defy any statistical experiment.

The person that setup the system in the first place. assuming such a beeing created the universe,and made its laws the way it wanted, it could be impossible.and is it setup that way? course, this would require you to believe in intelligent design. heresy of me to consider such a thing? not for a real scientist, thats openminded. as i said before,i will believe anything if the facts support it. all IMHO

[Mujadaddy]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi Different situation. the outcome already exists. weather or not the someone finds it or not. this winning ticket was created and didnt pop into existance...

Lottery ticket numbers are instanced... in effect, when they are bought, they "Pop" into existance, as the number is either random or chosen by the purchaser...


Diadem---thank you for the maths
Heart of Gold

[Odin]

@ this Thread


@ the creationist poster: Mutations are random, not evolution as a whole. Natural seletion definitely isn't random. Creationists who say that evolution is all random, or that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics apparently don't know jack about Natural Selection or the 2nd law, the creationists ranting on about the 2nd law seem to convienently forget that the biosphere is not a closed system.

[Diadem]

Creationism is just gibberish for the most part. These days I usually do not even bother to respond to it anymore. These people refuse to see the truth even if it's hitting them in the face.

Evolution random? Come on, read a book.

[Aeson]

Kataphraktoi,

If you are going to quote me, please refrain from quoting other people in your response without qualifying which are which. It is confusing, and a dishonest representation of what has been said.

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Actually, its not my basis for saying its impossible. What i mean to say behind all that, is that their is no basis for it happaning. The state of the cards is 'order' then 'chaos' as they are flipping and 'random' forces cannot reorder them into order again.quote by blake on this actually sums by position up decently. those physical forces need to be overcome by something, some other source of energy for the cards other than gravity.

Your "order" is your own. A chaotic system can give results that we perceive as "order". A stack of cards is "ordered" to us, but the absolute order of the matter in any of the cards is no more or less ordered in that state than in any other orientation of the cards.

Therein lies the root of your problem. The universe cannot just pop into existance. external sources of energy are needed to start it. and off that...

That's not my problem. I didn't say the universe popped into existance.

This does tie in...i can say that because the universe needed someone to start it.

So that "external" someone... did they just pop into existence, or were they created by an "external" force? Or is the option that you aren't giving the "universe", that it's always existed in some form, an option you are arbitrarily giving to this "external" someone?

entropy. without someone\something pumping more order into the univ, it will slowly decay. you can rename 'order' with whatever you like, but the world isnt a self-sustaining machine indefinitly.

I did not say the world is a self-sustaining machine. The state of this world has been, is, and will be a result of the actual forces at work. It is ridiculous to assume the world will always be the same given that I can observe change in the world constantly. (To qualify, I am not talking about the world at a given point in time, but across time.)

Don't you ever get tired of making up arguments to attribute to people to argue against? You say you don't have time to argue against all the points made... so stop creating the superflous ones.

OK. do you or not think it could happan?

My first post did not answer that question. In response to the first post you assumed there was an answer made. My second post did answer that question. In response to the second post you assumed there was no answer made. Your assumptions are completely backwards in this regard.

I would agree your correct on all points...except your base is faulty. your arguments are based on that assumption that odds or chances created things. correct?

Again, you assume my position in absense of (or even in spite of) my actual stated position.

You are completely incorrect in your assessment of my position. My position is not that odds or chances create things. Odds or chances are ways we have developed to help us predict what will occur when it can't be certain. They don't make it occur. (To qualify that, note we are not talking about quantum probabilities.) Odds are like the "order" that you are inflicting on physics. A relative term that has meaning to us, but not to the actual mechanics involved.

I have said that in my previous post.

in that case, my argument rests on assumption that all things need to be created or influenced and then are free to wind down with entropy to whatever states they are headed towards.

So what creates or influences this "external" someone you are assuming exists? You have said that everything needs to be created or influenced, so follow through on it.

My personal belief is that something has always existed, and that the true nature of it is beyond my (or humanity's) ability to fully comprehend and explain.

Perhaps that something "created" everything we see as the "universe" (and perhaps much more), or perhaps that something is everything we see as the "universe" (and perhaps much more). I do not believe things just "poof" in and out of existance, even though they can appear to "poof" in and out of existance if viewed from the proper perspectives. For instance, if you view matter solely from a 2d plane perspective, it can be constantly "poofing" in and out of "existance" as it crosses that plane. It seems reasonable to me that if matter is not constrained to 3d that it could appear to behave the same way to our 3d perception.

(I know this is not all scientifically supported. That's why I term it a belief.)

If the universe was not randomly poofed, then there is no reason to say ''all things are possible'' based on that

I have not said all things are possible. Obviously odds can be 0:X, in which case they are not deemed possible. If the odds are correct, they will be 0:X for any impossible outcome.

You say X:Y (where Y is a huge number, and X is a small positive number) can lead to impossibility. That either means you are determining or using the odds incorrectly. If it is impossible, X=0. Simple.

As i said, statistics can show what has happaned. any statistics on something that hasnt happaned is pure guessing with maybe some math to make it look good.

Everything is "pure guessing" then. No event that occurs does so in a manner entirely the same as any previous event. (Time, let alone all the changes in the universe facilitated by it's passing, determines that.) This "guessing" still allows us to have predictive systems that give reliable results though. For instance, I put gas in my car's gas tank because statistically that has been shown in my experience to be a much more useful fuel source than water.

without a reason\external force that wants them to or is influencing things towards that to come back together, the cards wont. as only sentient's or automated systems setup by those sentient's can influence things with a will(care about the cards coming together) if neither influence things the current way things works dictate that they will spread out.

An "ordered" pack of cards can exist given the physics we are dealing with. They may or may not exist in that orientation in the future. That will be determined by the forces that act upon them. But the fact is that physics is the reason why they are "ordered" in the first place. You, I, everyone, and anything we "order" is done while obeying the laws of physics. (And that is true whether or not a sentient being set up those laws of physics.)

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Diadem
Creationism is just gibberish for the most part. These days I usually do not even bother to respond to it anymore. These people refuse to see the truth even if it's hitting them in the face.

Evolution random? Come on, read a book.

I don't want to take a stance on this creationist/evolutionist argument yet but I think it's neccessary to point out that many people believe both - i.e. god (or whoever/whatever) created the world and then things evolved after being created in a particular state.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we cannot (yet) trace any evolution back to its 'original' state (what everything/anything evolved from in the first place), so this 'fence-sitter' theory cannot be disproven (again this is just a hunch, no proof).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
hmmm...that is more what im looking at, some actuall numbers. re-reading the last posts, i think i may change my stance here a little (is there a formula for indicating the likelyhood of a poster to actualy change his opinions?

I only know the conditional probabilty that if given the debate is in the OT the probability is zero (no known occurence) and elsewhere it is zero (almost surely - meaning that it can occur but with a tending to zero frequency)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I only know the conditional probabilty that if given the debate is in the OT the probability is zero (no known occurence) and elsewhere it is zero (almost surely - meaning that it can occur but with a tending to zero frequency)

It's not true wrt the OT that nobody ever changes his opinions. It is just a very rare occurance, that's all.

[Diadem]

Originally posted by Axxaer

I don't want to take a stance on this creationist/evolutionist argument yet but I think it's neccessary to point out that many people believe both - i.e. god (or whoever/whatever) created the world and then things evolved after being created in a particular state.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we cannot (yet) trace any evolution back to its 'original' state (what everything/anything evolved from in the first place), so this 'fence-sitter' theory cannot be disproven (again this is just a hunch, no proof).

But when people use the word 'creationism' they do not usually use it in such a minimalistic meaning.

In it's original form, the evolutionary theory states nothing about the origin of life. It just states that species change, that new species evolve from old ones, and that this happens by means of natural selection.

If evolutionarists never meant more than that with the word 'evolution' and creationists never meant more than the minimalist meaning by the word 'creationism' there obviously would not be any debate.

However we all know that there is a lot of debate

[Enigma_Nova]

I change my opinions in debates all the time.
My opinions of other debaters change from "I respect your point of view" to "You are an idiot".