## Probability and Genetics - Greyhorn El

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Probability and Genetics - Greyhorn El1

Arising_uk wrote:
Blaggard wrote:... I am still waiting for an argument on your nonsense genetics maths ...
You and me both. Not sure what you pointed out but I just asked him how his genetic probabilities would come out if he factored in the sieve of natural selection. Still awaiting his calculations.
I suggest that you stop eating and drinking until you get them. As I explained, NS and the probability of genetic changes are not related, not causally, not mathematically. NS would apply even if God or Monsanto programmed the DNA for every critter. But then, you do not appear sufficiently intelligent to have understood that explanation. Sorry that I wasted my time on a 15-yo kid struggling to make it through high-school.

Greylorn

Arising_uk
Posts: 12081
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Probability and Genetics - Greyhorn El

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
I suggest that you stop eating and drinking until you get them. As I explained, NS and the probability of genetic changes are not related, not causally, not mathematically. ...
Then why are you using mathematical probabilities to deny that they could have occurred as the theory of evolution and genetics claims?

Your 'probabilities' claim that the combinations we see know could not have occurred and you used an analogy of heads and tails coin tosses. I pointed-out to you that the Darwinists say that natural selection applies to genes and as such its sieve would mean that 'favourable' combinations would be more probable over time, I used your analogy to explain this, i.e. if a full-set of heads was the 'favourable' pattern then every time it occurred all the other patterns would have their probability slightly reduced. Given such a mechanism I would assume that the calculations you made would have to be recalculated with this in mind, so I asked you to make them and so far I'm still waiting. Could it be that the maths you gave was not yours? That you've just plagiarised them from somewhere and are unable to make such a recalculation, no problem if so but it'd be easier if you just said so as then I could stop asking you for them as you gave the impression that they were your maths.
NS would apply even if God or Monsanto programmed the DNA for every critter.
True, are you saying that NS did not apply to genes? Not a Dawkinite then. If so then you need to find some other reason for saying so other than the mathematical probabilities say so as so far it appears you've not calculated them fairly with respect to what Darwinism and NS say.
But then, you do not appear sufficiently intelligent to have understood that explanation. ...
I understand that you appear to be contradicting yourself in numerous ways and spend much time avoiding perfectly sensible questions, why is that?
Sorry that I wasted my time on a 15-yo kid struggling to make it through high-school. ...
The more you make comments like this the more I realise that you have not the education that you claim.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

It's not a matter of education per se, although he has stated that all people in science at least as it pertains to biology, are nitwits, and that they don't know how to reason properly, which is frankly quite laughable. I am not sure such ill considered ad hominems against the whole of science really need discussing though. That's like me throwing out that all philosophy is shit and they are all fucktards, it would be of course not only innapropriate, being as I have never studied the subject, or known any professional philosophers, it would be just plain ignorant. Now I realise he has met scientists, knows scientists so it's not a perfect comparison but to say the whole field is for shit is really odd, but even if you were the most cited and well known Scientist in the world who had met most in their field, that would sound like a trite thing to say.

He just needs to start making sense, that would be the first step on the road to reason. Insults, petty backbiting, all meaningless in a conversation about science or philosophy. Just explain yourself and do it in a manner people can understand or don't and hence face criticism for it. That's of course what makes forums interesting, and what they are about.

I wouldn't put anyone on ignore for making a bad argument, I would seriously consider El at this point though, because it's but one disaster after another of bad biological arguments, and note again to iterate, I am not criticising his physics, because a) I don't feel educated enough to do so and b) if I were to it would probably a poorly educated opinion on the matter, at least as it is pertinanent to that thread, other threads, well it is a philosophy forum, we are all entitled to an opinion, if we use good judgement we might even make a point worth reading; it has now got to the point that you can't actually listen to any more bad arguments, or denials or ad hominems, because you are simply bored of it. Make a case please!

It's sad really I am sure if he put the effort in he could actually make a decent argument, he chooses not to though, and that's noones' fault not even the Romans, that, is his fault though, oh wait it is someone's fault.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
I suggest that you stop eating and drinking until you get them. As I explained, NS and the probability of genetic changes are not related, not causally, not mathematically. ...
Then why are you using mathematical probabilities to deny that they could have occurred as the theory of evolution and genetics claims?

Your 'probabilities' claim that the combinations we see know could not have occurred and you used an analogy of heads and tails coin tosses. I pointed-out to you that the Darwinists say that natural selection applies to genes and as such its sieve would mean that 'favourable' combinations would be more probable over time, I used your analogy to explain this, i.e. if a full-set of heads was the 'favourable' pattern then every time it occurred all the other patterns would have their probability slightly reduced. Given such a mechanism I would assume that the calculations you made would have to be recalculated with this in mind, so I asked you to make them and so far I'm still waiting. Could it be that the maths you gave was not yours? That you've just plagiarised them from somewhere and are unable to make such a recalculation, no problem if so but it'd be easier if you just said so as then I could stop asking you for them as you gave the impression that they were your maths.
NS would apply even if God or Monsanto programmed the DNA for every critter.
True, are you saying that NS did not apply to genes? Not a Dawkinite then. If so then you need to find some other reason for saying so other than the mathematical probabilities say so as so far it appears you've not calculated them fairly with respect to what Darwinism and NS say.
But then, you do not appear sufficiently intelligent to have understood that explanation. ...
I understand that you appear to be contradicting yourself in numerous ways and spend much time avoiding perfectly sensible questions, why is that?
Sorry that I wasted my time on a 15-yo kid struggling to make it through high-school. ...
The more you make comments like this the more I realise that you have not the education that you claim.
AUK,
I'm willing to give this another go, but beforehand I need to know your mathematical background. Have you taken a university-level course in probability theory? If so was it geared for biologists, mathematicians, or physicists? I ask this because it seems as though you do not understand what I've written on this subject, and I need to know your level of education before generating an explanation that you might understand.

Then, consider the value of playing a simple game at the cost of 35 pounds (or dollars, your choice) per play. If you win you'll get 100 pounds back.

3 green marbles and 2 red marbles are placed in an opaque bag. You must reach into the bag blindfolded and pick one marble, put it on a table. Then, same thing. You win if you end up with two green marbles on the table.

Suppose that you are allowed to play this game 1000 times, allowing the odds to average out. At the end of the 1000 plays, will you be richer or poorer? And for the big prize, by how much?

It would be best if you can answer this little problem without recourse to a consultant or adviser. Should you want to do a bit of research into basic probability math before answering, you will learn something from the experience.

Greylorn

P.S. Re: your comment above, "...I pointed-out to you that the Darwinists say that natural selection applies to genes and as such its sieve would mean that 'favourable' combinations would be more probable over time, I used your analogy to explain this, i.e. if a full-set of heads was the 'favourable' pattern then every time it occurred all the other patterns would have their probability slightly reduced." Sorry, but I missed this, and will review/answer it if I can find it. Can you give me thread name, page number, and posting date? Thanks.

My answer will depend upon your reply to this post, of course. There's no point in replying otherwise, as I'm sure you'll understand.

Arising_uk
Posts: 12081
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
AUK,
I'm willing to give this another go, but beforehand I need to know your mathematical background. Have you taken a university-level course in probability theory? If so was it geared for biologists, mathematicians, or physicists? I ask this because it seems as though you do not understand what I've written on this subject, and I need to know your level of education before generating an explanation that you might understand. ...
My mathematical abilities are abysmal, so go for the really simple explanation please.
Then, consider the value of playing a simple game at the cost of 35 pounds (or dollars, your choice) per play. If you win you'll get 100 pounds back.

3 green marbles and 2 red marbles are placed in an opaque bag. You must reach into the bag blindfolded and pick one marble, put it on a table. Then, same thing. You win if you end up with two green marbles on the table.

Suppose that you are allowed to play this game 1000 times, allowing the odds to average out. At the end of the 1000 plays, will you be richer or poorer? And for the big prize, by how much?

It would be best if you can answer this little problem without recourse to a consultant or adviser. Should you want to do a bit of research into basic probability math before answering, you will learn something from the experience.
Thanks for the exercise. I'll use it to teach myself the basics but since this'll take a fairly long time given my starting point I'd appreciate it if you could address my question below in as simple a manner as you can.
P.S. Re: your comment above, "...I pointed-out to you that the Darwinists say that natural selection applies to genes and as such its sieve would mean that 'favourable' combinations would be more probable over time, I used your analogy to explain this, i.e. if a full-set of heads was the 'favourable' pattern then every time it occurred all the other patterns would have their probability slightly reduced." Sorry, but I missed this, and will review/answer it if I can find it. Can you give me thread name, page number, and posting date? Thanks.
No need as we can use your example just as well. So take your marble-game, what would happen to the futures results if when I win with two greens one of the reds turns green? I.e. a kind of natural selection is implemented with respect to the probabilities of green marbles occurring in future.
My answer will depend upon your reply to this post, of course. There's no point in replying otherwise, as I'm sure you'll understand.
I thought you said that your reply depends upon what level my understand is, not that you wouldn't be replying. My understanding and experience of those who know what they are talking about is that they can explain it in simple terms if necessary.
p.s.
Of course you could also post the complicated explanation as I understand that Blaggard has a degree in Biology and is currently studying Physics which I assume means he has at least an A-level in Mathematics, so he should at least be able to get a handle upon your explanation.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Of course you could also post the complicated explanation as I understand that Blaggard has a degree in Biology and is currently studying Physics which I assume means he has at least an A-level in Mathematics, so he should at least be able to get a handle upon your explanation.
You're wasting your time, he wont talk to me ever, you might as well just accept that. Why I don't know, apparently I am a) illiterate b) a twit c) not educated enough to understand d) something else in the long series of adhoms he has made when faced with perfectly civil arguments.

So I guess pertinently: how do you get this ignorant guy to talk to you, answers on a postcard because I have utterly destroyed his maths and he seems not to talk to me only, and only because of that.

@GE: you seem Grey to be intellectually dishonest and what's more not what a forum is about. If you want to ignore anything inconvenient to you fine, but don't expect anyone to expect cherry picking to be a valid means of discourse.

Please you don't need to explain to a maths numpty or even me but I am pretty sure there are some scientists with journal entries that I posted who might want to know why they are morons? Despite having done eveything you want and claim is impossible at least 1000 times in numerous journal articles, I can only presume GE is too lazy to read.

Here's a bit of advice I always like to put a bit of sugar in with the vinegar, if you are so able to answer nit wits, it would seem you should do so, so why not do so, seems obvious to me?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
AUK,
I'm willing to give this another go, but beforehand I need to know your mathematical background. Have you taken a university-level course in probability theory? If so was it geared for biologists, mathematicians, or physicists? I ask this because it seems as though you do not understand what I've written on this subject, and I need to know your level of education before generating an explanation that you might understand. ...
My mathematical abilities are abysmal, so go for the really simple explanation please.
AUK,
I appreciate your honesty. I'd like to try something that might benefit both of us, and which might also be of value to anyone reading but not participating in this thread. It will require your cooperation and your curiosity. I propose to teach you the basic principles of probability mathematics, and show how they apply to genetic mutations. Specifically, I'll show you the math behind my calculation, if you are willing to learn it. First a few comments that relate to your style of thinking, as I perceive it to be.

People who are not hard scientists have a tendency to trust science-authority figures. If unable to follow the mathematical logic, they have no other choice. Some of those with a hard science background suffer the same problem, but at a higher level. A physics student might find Newton's Principia Mathematica fairly easy reading, yet be dumbfounded by Feynman's Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics.

My personal theory of human understanding claims that hardly anyone really understands deep theory, and that is why experiments are so important. For example, every student graduating with a B.S. in physics must know Relativity Theory and basic electrodynamics. Suppose that those post-grads who wanted to go on to graduate school were evaluated not by their accumulated grades, but by a simple two-hour snap quiz (unanticipated, so not studied for the previous night) that included one of these questions:

Using the data, physics knowledge, and mathematical tools available to Maxwell at the time, derive his four equations of electrodynamics from scratch.

Using the same kinds of tools as available to Einstein, derive his Theory of Special Relativity.

Such fundamental-level entrance exams are unlikely to be given, because doing so will quickly deplete physics graduate schools of students, thus depriving worthless teaching professors of a useful function, and perhaps eventually an income.

I mention this only to point out that at some level, everyone in science must accept the authority of previous work. I could not pass the test just outlined. No course I've ever taken required students to solve such a fundamental problem. I've tried understanding those derivations on my own, but failed. The best I (and perhaps many others) could do was to apply their results.

You, like other non-scientists (non-physicists, anyway) are pretty much stuck believing in authority figures, just like churchgoers believe in their scriptures and religious leaders. This shows in your comments, where you reference the beliefs of selected Darwinists, for example. This trust in authority on both of our parts works out fine for the most part-- but fails when the authorities are incorrect.

I've learned the long way that arguing with someone who quotes his authority figures is a complete waste of time. The best I can do is to trot out authority figures of my own. Our conversation about the mathematical soundness of Darwinism would soon degenerate into an action-figure game between two children. Let's not do that. I would prefer to show you how to become your own authority figure. The way to accomplish that is for you to learn basic probability math.

Of course you might wonder if I have the skills to teach you properly. The wonderful thing about math is that there is no other way to teach it. Its logic is internal. The only thing that I can do is to teach you how to recognize and use that logic. When you get the logic, you get the math. It is independent of whoever explains it.

If you are interested in this project, let me know. It would be discourteous of me to proceed otherwise.
Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Then, consider the value of playing a simple game at the cost of 35 pounds (or dollars, your choice) per play. If you win you'll get 100 pounds back.

3 green marbles and 2 red marbles are placed in an opaque bag. You must reach into the bag blindfolded and pick one marble, put it on a table. Then, same thing. You win if you end up with two green marbles on the table.

Suppose that you are allowed to play this game 1000 times, allowing the odds to average out. At the end of the 1000 plays, will you be richer or poorer? And for the big prize, by how much?

It would be best if you can answer this little problem without recourse to a consultant or adviser. Should you want to do a bit of research into basic probability math before answering, you will learn something from the experience.
Thanks for the exercise. I'll use it to teach myself the basics but since this'll take a fairly long time given my starting point I'd appreciate it if you could address my question below in as simple a manner as you can.
It need not take you longer than this weekend-- or the next if you persist in dragging your feet. And I'll do better than answer that question. I'll show you how to answer it for yourself.
Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Sorry, but I missed this, and will review/answer it if I can find it. Can you give me thread name, page number, and posting date? Thanks.
No need as we can use your example just as well. So take your marble-game, what would happen to the futures results if when I win with two greens one of the reds turns green? I.e. a kind of natural selection is implemented with respect to the probabilities of green marbles occurring in future.

Because those who see physics from the perspective of a documentary-channel viewer are regularly exposed to blackboards or windows filled with irrelevant esoteric equations that are never explained in context, people do not appreciate the importance of simplicity in math and physics. The complex equations you see on TV serve only one purpose-- that of intimidating the viewer into thinking that he can never understand that gobbledegook on his own, and must trust the authority figures on his screen. That's utter bullshit. Basic physics involves simple principles expressed in simple mathematical formulas.

This simplicity is arrived at by reducing physics to simple examples, then keeping them simple until the problem is resolved. For example, Newton's 2nd Law of Motion was experimentally derived by Galileo, by timing wooden balls rolling down inclined planes with a simple water-clock.

Your question is an immediate attempt to complexify a simple problem. It is better answered in the context of quantum mechanics, and we are not ready for that yet.

There is another factor to be considered, which is, does a particular mathematical problem actually apply to a physics or biology question? We will be better equipped to resolve that question after you have learned to solve some simple mathematical problems.

If you wish to proceed, here are the basic standards of probability math.

Probabilities are measured within the scale of zero to one. Zero means, cannot happen. One-- must happen. 0.5 means, even shot.

Sometimes people like to express probabilities in terms of percentages. This is managed simply by multiplying the value by 100. Thus, 100% means that it must happen, and 50% means even chance.

Your first exercise is, given the above example, what is the probability of pulling one green marble from the bag of 3 green, 2 red marbles? Use common sense to solve the problem, then express your solution as a number in the range of 0-1, or as a percentage.

Then, from the same initial conditions, what is the probability of pulling one red marble?
Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:My answer will depend upon your reply to this post, of course. There's no point in replying otherwise, as I'm sure you'll understand.
I thought you said that your reply depends upon what level my understand is, not that you wouldn't be replying. My understanding and experience of those who know what they are talking about is that they can explain it in simple terms if necessary.
If your reply showed that you could not or would not do some work on your own, I'd be wasting my time.

You and I share similar understandings of explainers. However, whether or not something can be explained depends upon the recipient's intelligence and prior knowledge. A normal 7-year old cannot be taught calculus, nor can a bright college philosophy student who does not know algebra and trigonometry. I am as certain that the Queen of England cannot learn calculus as I am that Obama cannot learn anything of consequence.

This conversation arose because you were asking good questions but clearly were unable to make sense of my simple answers. I'd like to answer your questions is such a manner that you completely understand my answer. You will need to understand basic, simple, probability math first. Most importantly, you must own whatever understanding you acquire. I'll work with you, but if you bring B into the conversation, I'm gone. I have better things to do than engage in further conversation with any truculent jackass who pretends to expertise that he does not manifest, and who invents his own "facts."

I cannot stop a jackass from braying, but if you feed him, you own him, and I'll assume that you lack the courage to obtain your own understanding, and will be forever dependent upon authority figures with dubious authority. If that's the case, I'll leave the two of you to your own devices, forever, with some small regrets in your instance.

Greylorn

SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

With respect to the double slit experiment, you guys are just taking the findings on faith. As you have no idea as to the controls put in place to ensure the findings are exclusive. This then, is why I don't dabble in QM. I have a hard time with faith. I have to understand something from the ground up, otherwise I steer clear of acceptance.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

SpheresOfBalance wrote:With respect to the double slit experiment, you guys are just taking the findings on faith. As you have no idea as to the controls put in place to ensure the findings are exclusive. This then, is why I don't dabble in QM. I have a hard time with faith. I have to understand something from the ground up, otherwise I steer clear of acceptance.
1. The double-slit experiment is not a QM experiment. It was devised well before Planck's work.

Yes, it is especially wise to not dabble in things from whom one's understanding is divorced.

2. What exactly is it that you claim to "understand from the ground up?"

Greylorn

SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Greylorn Ell wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:With respect to the double slit experiment, you guys are just taking the findings on faith. As you have no idea as to the controls put in place to ensure the findings are exclusive. This then, is why I don't dabble in QM. I have a hard time with faith. I have to understand something from the ground up, otherwise I steer clear of acceptance.
1. The double-slit experiment is not a QM experiment. It was devised well before Planck's work.
Never said it was, you just did, then you denied it.
Yes, it is especially wise to not dabble in things from whom one's understanding is divorced.
Thank you, I'll take wise. Yet not divorced, just don't see the value, of reading others and then attesting to their work, as if it has any reflection on me. Hey that's what I did indeed say.
2. What exactly is it that you claim to "understand from the ground up?"
The many things that I have actually done, for myself, not through the eyes or deeds of others.
Greylorn
You just fear your take on evolution, being that of probabilities, of which math can solve, as being incorrect in the eyes of the now emerging epigenetics. Which I fully understand! I mean who wouldn't, from an old school.

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Greylorn Ell wrote:I'd like to try something that might benefit both of us, and which might also be of value to anyone reading but not participating in this thread.
I'm reading now but not particpating. The extent of my probability math is self-taught from playing poker, so I'm sure I'll learn something. Don't know what the whole back story to this post is, but wanted you to know that I'll be following closely to see where it goes (and doing my homeowrk too, though from the sidelines, as I don't want to interrupt your flow with Arising).

Arising_uk
Posts: 12081
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Greylorn Ell wrote:...

You, like other non-scientists (non-physicists, anyway) are pretty much stuck believing in authority figures, just like churchgoers believe in their scriptures and religious leaders. This shows in your comments, where you reference the beliefs of selected Darwinists, for example. This trust in authority on both of our parts works out fine for the most part-- but fails when the authorities are incorrect.
That MSc I got was a waste of time then? Still it was a logic based AI course and I did struggle with the part that involved mathematical implementations, e.g. neural nets.

All I said was you weren't a Dawkinite, I said that because I've read his book that started all the kerfuffle with the godbotherers. Have you? Its still a moot point I think amongst Darwinists as to whether the gene is the unit of selection as he claimed, me I think the unit of selection is the living entity.
I've learned the long way that arguing with someone who quotes his authority figures is a complete waste of time. The best I can do is to trot out authority figures of my own. Our conversation about the mathematical soundness of Darwinism would soon degenerate into an action-figure game between two children. Let's not do that. I would prefer to show you how to become your own authority figure. The way to accomplish that is for you to learn basic probability math.
Show me where I quoted someone?
Of course you might wonder if I have the skills to teach you properly. The wonderful thing about math is that there is no other way to teach it. Its logic is internal. The only thing that I can do is to teach you how to recognize and use that logic. When you get the logic, you get the math. It is independent of whoever explains it.
I discovered I preferred Logic to Maths but I presume them fairly close as they are both formal axiomatic systems, so who knows maybe the Logic I learnt will help me with the Maths this time around.
If you are interested in this project, let me know. It would be discourteous of me to proceed otherwise.
Sure, could be informative to many but I think we'd need to start a new thread in the Philosophy of Maths and Logic section as we're derailing this thread enough.
It need not take you longer than this weekend-- or the next if you persist in dragging your feet. And I'll do better than answer that question. I'll show you how to answer it for yourself.
Unlike you apparently I have other things going on in my life so I don't have a whole weekend to spare upon such a thing. I'll just trudge along at my own pace thanks.
Because those who see physics from the perspective of a documentary-channel viewer are regularly exposed to blackboards or windows filled with irrelevant esoteric equations that are never explained in context, people do not appreciate the importance of simplicity in math and physics. The complex equations you see on TV serve only one purpose-- that of intimidating the viewer into thinking that he can never understand that gobbledegook on his own, and must trust the authority figures on his screen. That's utter bullshit. Basic physics involves simple principles expressed in simple mathematical formulas.

This simplicity is arrived at by reducing physics to simple examples, then keeping them simple until the problem is resolved. For example, Newton's 2nd Law of Motion was experimentally derived by Galileo, by timing wooden balls rolling down inclined planes with a simple water-clock.

Your question is an immediate attempt to complexify a simple problem. It is better answered in the context of quantum mechanics, and we are not ready for that yet.
No idea what all this gobbledegook is about? I asked you a very simple question based upon your example. You claim NS could not produce the combinations that we see in the genome and you say you have the mathematical probabilities to prove it. It seems to me that you have not accounted for the action of NS upon the genome, i.e. combinations that are beneficial will be retained and others will be effectively deselected. I asked you if you have factored in the effect of NS into your calculations and I'm still waiting for an answer or at least a reason why you should not?

Oh! And thanks for the Physics history but there really is no need as part of my BA(Hons) Philosophy was Phil of Science so I know most of the old tales.
There is another factor to be considered, which is, does a particular mathematical problem actually apply to a physics or biology question? We will be better equipped to resolve that question after you have learned to solve some simple mathematical problems.

If you wish to proceed, here are the basic standards of probability math.

Probabilities are measured within the scale of zero to one. Zero means, cannot happen. One-- must happen. 0.5 means, even shot. ...
We have a slight philosophical difference about probabilities and the real world here as to me Zero would mean hasn't happened, One means has happened and 0.5 means it has happened half the time over the the things that have happened.
Sometimes people like to express probabilities in terms of percentages. This is managed simply by multiplying the value by 100. Thus, 100% means that it must happen, and 50% means even chance.

Your first exercise is, given the above example, what is the probability of pulling one green marble from the bag of 3 green, 2 red marbles? Use common sense to solve the problem, then express your solution as a number in the range of 0-1, or as a percentage.

Then, from the same initial conditions, what is the probability of pulling one red marble?
A separate thread I think but at present I'd prefer fractions or ratios so one green marble would be a three in five chance and a red marble would be a two in five chance. See you in the other thread if you'd care to start it.
If your reply showed that you could not or would not do some work on your own, I'd be wasting my time.

You and I share similar understandings of explainers. However, whether or not something can be explained depends upon the recipient's intelligence and prior knowledge. A normal 7-year old cannot be taught calculus, nor can a bright college philosophy student who does not know algebra and trigonometry. I am as certain that the Queen of England cannot learn calculus as I am that Obama cannot learn anything of consequence.
I'd say you have no evidence for either claim. I'd also say you have a dim view of the capabilities of others.

Somewhere in your post you mentioned Feynman and QED, well I read his book QED and as he explained he can't explain how to do what the physicist does but he could explain why and what they are doing, something you appear to fail to be able to do which to me means you don't actually know what you are talking about.
This conversation arose because you were asking good questions but clearly were unable to make sense of my simple answers. ...
No offence but you haven't given an answer yet.
I'd like to answer your questions is such a manner that you completely understand my answer. You will need to understand basic, simple, probability math first. Most importantly, you must own whatever understanding you acquire. I'll work with you, but if you bring B into the conversation, I'm gone. I have better things to do than engage in further conversation with any truculent jackass who pretends to expertise that he does not manifest, and who invents his own "facts."
Is that like inventing a 'Beon'?

Like it or not Blaggard says he has a degree in Biology and is studying for one in Physics, given he's from the UK that means he has an A-level in Maths which easily covers probability theory and also means that he would have used probabilities in his Biology degree. So I wonder at your motivation for not engaging with him?
I cannot stop a jackass from braying, but if you feed him, you own him, and I'll assume that you lack the courage to obtain your own understanding, and will be forever dependent upon authority figures with dubious authority. If that's the case, I'll leave the two of you to your own devices, forever, with some small regrets in your instance.
I rely upon my own thinking thanks and my background is in Logic and Philosophy and Logic and Computing(albeit in a specialised area). As such and so far I find your shilly-shallying a bit tedious. Try answering my simple question and if I fail to understand parts of it I'll tell you.

Stil, look forward to the lessons and I'll await the post in the correct section.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

### Re: Wave Structure of Matter

Greylorn Ell wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:With respect to the double slit experiment, you guys are just taking the findings on faith. As you have no idea as to the controls put in place to ensure the findings are exclusive. This then, is why I don't dabble in QM. I have a hard time with faith. I have to understand something from the ground up, otherwise I steer clear of acceptance.
1. The double-slit experiment is not a QM experiment. It was devised well before Planck's work.

Yes, it is especially wise to not dabble in things from whom one's understanding is divorced.

2. What exactly is it that you claim to "understand from the ground up?"

Greylorn
Yes it is. It's about the wave particle duality of matter what is it then?

Christ this guy is really not even in the right ball park. When it was first used it was indeed not about quantum mechanics but after about 1915 it was, you can't say it isn't about something broadly like that it's wasting peoples time, and what's more it's just plain wrong too.

I admire your persistence UK but you aren't going to get anything meaningful out of El I think. Just ad hominems and false information.
Sometimes people like to express probabilities in terms of percentages. This is managed simply by multiplying the value by 100. Thus, 100% means that it must happen, and 50% means even chance.

Your first exercise is, given the above example, what is the probability of pulling one green marble from the bag of 3 green, 2 red marbles? Use common sense to solve the problem, then express your solution as a number in the range of 0-1, or as a percentage.

Then, from the same initial conditions, what is the probability of pulling one red marble?
Yes and your mindless twaddle as probabilities denote actual science have already been completely destroyed, so why you persist in advancing ideas that simply are impossible with maths that is nothing to do with evolution is beyond me, perhaps if you say it in a bolder font it will then magically become true in spite of all the contrary theories that utterly destroy yours, in every fundamental way, in every single part and in thousands of journals, and without even having to tackle your wanton mendacity. You're only lying to yourself, this can not be healthy.

Somehow without even being qualified in biology by magic you have stumbled on a fundamental truth that blows all science out of the water, well get it published then and stfu. Wittering on about how you are the light on a philosophy forum with people who can't understand your argument is about as useful as running head down into a wall. I can understand your argument, but then you put people on ignore who can understand your argument, and never talk to them again. Do you see why you are making no headway? Because it seems to me to be obvious...

You're doing nothing at all but belly aching at science, but you're too scared to actually put these ideas before real scientists. That makes you I am afraid: redundant.

What is the probability in a quantum system of pulling out a purple marble, how do you know the marbles in the bag will remain red and green, and why should they, how do you know that there are 5 marbles in there in the first place, if there are 3 green and 2 red, what does this knowledge mean at the sub atomic level, since DNA works at the quantum level in terms of finding DNA strands to replicate ie it utilises quantum not classical principles to locate DNA more rapidly, because it is a tiny molecule dealing with a large molecule, and then a tiny one again, why not ask something relevant to where the field is now, not where it was 40 years ago in ID land. Why because you don't have the first idea where the field currently is so explaining where it was in the past is as useful as playing ping pong with a 4 inch nail instead of a bat.

I could show you the paper from NASA that shows that DNA enzymes use quantum techniques to more rapidly find DNA strands, but what would be the point, you would no more read it than you would any of the countless other journals out there that show you to be barking up the wrong tree. Suffice to say probability in classical terms, and probability in quantum terms are not the same thing, one does hope you are going to acknowledge that at some point, but it is more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow to be brutally frank.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Probability and Genetics - Greyhorn El

Arising_uk wrote: ...Try answering my simple question and if I fail to understand parts of it I'll tell you.

Stil, look forward to the lessons and I'll await the post in the correct section.
AUK,
We've been down the "simple question" path before and got nowhere. Too much brush and swamp in the way. Hence the probability "lessons." They will take us on a circuitous path that will answer your simple question coming in from the backside.

I'll postpone your other comments until then, so as to avoid more swampland. Also, I'd prefer to continue the probability discussion on this thread, where it started, if you don't mind. We already have one person's attention, perhaps others. Let's make it easy for him to stick with this.

It might be argued that a discussion of probability math is off-topic. However, we went off-topic back when we digressed into the subject of genetics. Barring objections from the OP or moderator, we might as well stay here, stay on this track, and pursue this issue to its finish on the same thread where it began.
_________________________
Next lesson questions:

Pick one marble at a time from the bag with 3 green, 2 red marbles. Set whatever you draw aside before picking another. What is the probability of drawing two green marbles?

What is the probability of drawing two red marbles?

You are now given a magic bag containing four marbles, each a different color:
Amber, Cyan, Green, and Turquoise. Reach into the bag and choose one marble. What is the probability that it will be Turquoise?

The magic bag automatically replaces whatever marble you pick, so that its initial contents are always the same, except that the marbles will be moved around into different positions from the jostling of the bag when you pick your marble.

What is the probability that the next marble you pick will also be Turquoise?

And if you take a third marble, same question.
__________________________
If you have difficulty with any of these questions, I'll explain. It is essential to our conversation that you are clear on how probability math operates. I appreciate your patience as we move closer to dealing with your other question.

Greylorn

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests