well I've thought on this a while, and have come up with the following. if
you throw a 3 with a die, current theory states that the chance of it
would
be 1/6, and that 5/6th of total probability would belong the other five
possibities of throwing it, which is grossly inadequate, because these 6
possibilities only reflect the COINCIDENTAL complement of total
probability.
in reality the chance of throwing a 3 would be larger than of the other
five, how much depending on the likelihood and the evidence, some of the
increased probability relating to irregularity of the die and some of it
to
DESIGN, not least since you've just thrown a 3, which presents the
evidence.
as to likelihood, if you would find an autumn leave showing a precise and
extensive copy of the wood carvings on the doors of the st. peter in rome,
most people are inclined to interpret the evidence as an increased
probability of finding another one by chance. which is rather naïve if not
childish, since if the evidence were to be justly interpreted as an
increased probability of design, the chances of finding another leaf just
like it would depend on the past actions of the designer, and the
frequency
of the leaf could vary from just one to a thousand zillion copies. and the
same applies to the probability of life.
|
