Faith and uncertainity

[Buffy]

The best gamblers I know (and I know a few who make a fortune at it) disclaim any belief in luck at all. They say its skill and understanding the odds. The folks who run the casinos will tell you the same thing: yes there are "bets" but the only thing that creates losers in the long run is the inability to withstand long down streaks. "Winning" in the long run is about knowing how to take advantage of the odds--and suckers--to create a comfortable margin.

 

When you think about it--for the same reasons as in my previous post above--if you "have faith" in "luck" you hack away at that "faith" every time you lose. That's how you create Losers. :artgallery:

 

SO,

If one looks at the current scientific theory for the creation of life on earth they sort of have faith in Lady Lucks ability to create a short term chaos pertubation of a statitically unlikely event.

no, its not about "faith": in the long run, the random events work remarkably well. Samples of as small as a few dozen always begin to show the nature of their distribution curves. Over hundreds, its quite clear, when you get into millions, you know exactly what your averages are. Sure there's always an "outlier" but over time it just shows interesting parts of your curve.

 

Now throw some energy into the mix and you can make those curves dance!

 

Local reduction in entropy,

Buffy

[chilehed]

...Local reduction in entropy,...

Ooooh, ooooh, ooooh!!! [chilehed jumps up and down, flailing his arms whilst trying to plug his ears]...

Now THERE's a phrase that makes my head spin...:confused:

 

 

:)

[InfiniteNow]

Now THERE's a phrase that makes my head spin...

:confused:

 

Due to the increase in entropy elsewhere and overall... :)

[hallenrm]

God, in whom many people have faith, is not an ordinary human. We can’t exchange mail, speak with, or see Him in an ordinary way. If we speak with God (eg: pray) in the presence of honest companions, they do not hear any words, and can’t confirm and verify the contents of our communication.

 

But, that leaves the faith in the words of other people who have faith in God! and their number is rather large :confused:

[chilehed]

Due to the increase in entropy elsewhere and overall... ;)

:eek:

AAAAHHHGGGHHH!! AAAAGGHHHGGGGHHHHH!!!

:)

 

STOP, PLEASE STOP!!! I was hoping to escape from all hints of YEC pseudo-scientific babbling. Now I'm afraid that someone will say something about "information entropy" or some such nonsense.... :confused:

[InfiniteNow]

But, that leaves the faith in the words of other people who have faith in God! and their number is rather large :)

 

Popularity breeds not truth. :)

[Buffy]

:eek:

AAAAHHHGGGHHH!! AAAAGGHHHGGGGHHHHH!!!

:)

STOP, PLEASE STOP!!!

Entropy! Entropy! Entropy! :evil:

I was hoping to escape from all hints of YEC pseudo-scientific babbling.

Many of us like escaping "YEC pseudo-scientific babbling" too!

 

But do I sense that you call The Third Law of Thermodynamics "pseudo-science?" :eek:

Now I'm afraid that someone will say something about "information entropy" or some such nonsense.... :)

Information Entropy! Information Entropy! Information Entropy! (Whew, am I glad I only had to *type* that!)

 

Information Theory is used to deliver electricity to your home without blowing the entire electric grid. Its about as well supported as GR. You saying its "nonsense?" Why?

 

No Faith Required! Order now!

Buffy

[chilehed]

Entropy! Entropy! Entropy! :)

Many of us like escaping "YEC pseudo-scientific babbling" too!

 

But do I sense that you call The Third Law of Thermodynamics "pseudo-science?" :) ...Information Theory is used to deliver electricity to your home without blowing the entire electric grid. Its about as well supported as GR. You saying its "nonsense?" Why?...

I was referring to your earlier use of the phrase "local reduction in entropy", which is used almost exclusively by YECs. Every time I've heard someone use that terminology, it's turned out that they didn't have the slightest idea what entropy really or what is the Second Law really means.

 

Same thing for "information entropy", they seem to think that the information theory use of the word "entropy" has something to do with thermodynamics.

 

I have no problem with info theory, I just get hives when people confuse it with thermo.

[Buffy]

I was referring to your earlier use of the phrase "local reduction in entropy", which is used almost exclusively by YECs. Every time I've heard someone use that terminology, it's turned out that they didn't have the slightest idea what entropy really or what is the Second Law really means.

Tee hee! Sure enough, I just googled it: You'll notice though that its always in the same breath as "...and that would violate the law of thermodynamics..." which just goes to show that you're right, they don't understand it. :note:

I have no problem with info theory, I just get hives when people confuse it with thermo.

Well they ain't the same, but there's a tie or two... :beer:

 

Two-bit error correction,

Buffy

[chilehed]

...Well they ain't the same, but there's a tie or two... :beer:..

Yeah, I've heard that there are similarities in the math (my formal training didn't involve info theory), and I guess that's another thing that makes understanding entropy so difficult (not that it needs help!). A few months ago I thought I'd gotten to a Stage 3 understanding, but then I got idly interested in statistical mechanics and my migrane came back.

 

I keep telling them: information has no temperature and no heat content, therefore it has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But they just keep talking about their room getting messy and stuff...:note:

[InfiniteNow]

I keep telling them: information has no temperature and no heat content, therefore it has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The storage mediums of information do have those things though, and they are subject to the law. :note:

[hallenrm]

Popularity breeds not truth. :lol:

 

What would you then say about the faith in God of very many great scientists who are very popular too?

 

For example the following lecture

Scientists and Their Gods

 

Prof Schaefer is a popular scientist and his talks include examples of very many "great" scientists.:hihi: :lol:

[InfiniteNow]

What would you then say about the faith in God of very many great scientists who are very popular too?

 

For example the following lecture

Scientists and Their Gods

 

Prof Schaefer is a popular scientist and his talks include examples of very many "great" scientists.:thumbs_up :)

 

I'll need to check out the lecture at a later date, but to your first point, my original statement remains. The number of people who believe the Earth is flat does not influence the greater truth/untruth of the statement. The number of people who see aurora borealis and state that it's aliens doesn't influence whether or not it's aliens.

 

If those popular scientists of whom you speak can show me evidence of God more objective and valid than "Look at all the people who say it's so," I will then take another look with my cynically open mind. :cup:

[Larv]

What I don't understand is why religion needs to go to scinece for verification. Faith is faith, isn't it? You don't see very many scientists going to religion to verify their principles.

 

—Larv

[chilehed]

The storage mediums of information do have those things though, and they are subject to the law. :eek:

I have a feeling that I'm being led by the nose and don't know it.

 

I'm listening....

[cwes99_03]

Easily answered. Many who are religious are not blindly faithful to what others tell them is true. Thus they are constantly looking for explanations that are the most truthful (or at least they should be). This means testing out the scientific theories, continually searching things out. When scientific theories go against their beliefs, they reanalyze their beliefs and scientific thought and make adjustments if need be. However, sometimes adjustments cannot be made in your religious belief, so you have to make a decision based on faith in one or the other.

Particularly christians are taught through the scripture (1 Thes 5:21) to keep testing whether the things they hear are in line with scripture and observation.

 

Now on the other hand, non-religious scientists do not believe whatsoever in religion and thus do not concern themselves with it, even to discern if what many people believe may or may not be right. They just ignore the possibility because they don't like it's ramifications, and they continue on with their fingers stuck in their ears with their faith centered solely on science and man's ability to figure things out. What keeps them going? Continuing scientific discovery.

 

The only problem with your above post, Larv, is that you don't see that there are those in the middle who are both scientist and religious adherent. These do go to religion to verify their principles.

[InfiniteNow]

I have a feeling that I'm being led by the nose and don't know it.

 

I'm listening....

 

Well, it wasn't a riddle or anything. Where is information stored? In minds, in books, in computers, on tablets, whatever... To put that information there or maintain it takes energy, hence a system elsewhere shows a corresponding increase in entropy.

 

If information is in the mind, we had to eat food and digest it (not to mention all of the energy that went into cultivating that food and shipping, etc.)

 

If information is in books, it took energy to write it, and to print it, and to supply the machines with ink, and to process the paper...

 

If in a computer, it takes energy to arrange the chip, to build the chip, to provide power to the systems that read the hard drive, etc...

 

Tablets... well, go get yourself a rock and chip away at it until you have the works of Shakespeare. You'll have processed a huge amount of energy (i.e. increased entropy elsewhere) before that local system has a decrease in disorder (increase in order).

 

"I think, therefore my local ordered state has led to greater disorder overall." -- Descartes, but not really. :eek:

 

 

:eek: