> > 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,
>
> Really? Surely probability theory says nothing about the numerical
> value?
>
no but it doesn't do a lot with evidence now, or does it?
anyway, set aside life, the notion that there would, should or must
allways
be a complement of design to a total probability of 1, which is currently
completely neglected, since we only add up the coïncidental probabilities
to
arrive to 1, that notion directly relates to the physical model of quanta
interacting in inert 3D space. is the notion that "no event could ever
happen or be conceived of with a coïncidental probability of 1.0\ or 0.0\"
simply due to a lack of data, or is it due to the fact that (our model of)
inert space is intrinsically not a closed system?
my claim is that the latter notion may well be true, and I'm rather
inclined
to endorse it, but that it becomes rather irrelevant if we would only be
willing to adopt the possibility of design, which clearly resorts in the
category of lacking data. at least as to its specifics. basicly before we
energetically start to presume 3D space to be as leak as a wicker basket
(which, in the absence of any actual proof, also resorts in the category
of
lacking data) we would do better to investigate the possibilities of
design
inside it, not least since, as to probability, it is a lot closer to home.
first things first, wouldn't you agree?
|
