Talk:Universal probability bound

Number of Particles in Universe
I've edited this page because a casual reading of the page implies that dembski's probability bound describes events across the entire universe. It does not. It only applies to the observable universe. We do not know how large the universe is - only the observable portion of it. H123b wiki (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Demski does not explain why the number of particles should be taken to be the number of particles in the observable universe (10^80), as opposed to the number of particles in the entire universe (some unknown number greater or equal than 10^80). Of course, taking the latter number means that there would be no known bound for the universal probability bound because at the moment there is no known bound on the size of the universe. MvH Jan 17, 2005.


 * If you have a theory that the universe contains more than 10^80 particles and can prove it scientifically, please share. Then the Universal probability bound could be adjusted to take into account new evidence. That a calculated constant can be adjusted by new observational data does not invalidate using that number. We could observe light traveling at a different speed than we expect and overthrow a great deal of our current understanding of physics. That doesn't mean that we should stop using the current conventional value because we might come up with a different one later. This proposal that 10^80 not be used because there might be more stuff out there we can't see or haven't yet seen strikes me as something of an argument from ignorance, a delicious irony to the ID people who usually get that charge tossed at them. TMLutas 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * TMLutas, you have misrepresented how the size of the universe affects this argument. We know that it is at least as large as the observable universe, but no serious contemporary scientist claims to have an upper bound as of 2016 despite attempts to find an upper bound. Given that these are two separate concepts: the observable universe and the entire universe, and dembski's formula only applies to the formula, the article *must* make it clear that we mean the former. You are perhaps right to question how we know it is larger than 10^80, but in fact, nobody is claiming that it *is* larger than 10^80 --- merely that we do not have an upper limit to how many protons there may be in the entire universe.


 * Science is based on empirical observable evidence. Thus it needs to use the empirical or observable universe. String theory being criticized as unscientific since it addresses unmeasureably small "strings" and unmeasureable other universes.71.120.35.49 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see citing the cryptography numbers; those are published in the technical literature and are subject to the criticism and consensus of the community. However, I see no good reason that Dembski's particular take should be featured here as the centerpiece of the article. If one wants to argue that the term itself is Dembski's creation, then it needs to be noted that this is not the terminology used in the technical literature, and Dembski has not been a participant in the cryptographic definition and use of the concepts and terms in that field. If one wants to argue that the concept does have use in the field of cryptography, then the article needs to emphasize the work that has been done in the field and make clear that it isn't Dembski's work that is being applied. In either case, the article as it stands is neither NPOV nor based (so far as it is a promotional piece for Dembski and not a look at cryptography and risk assessment there) on substantiated knowledge. The only technical publication thus far advocating the term "universal probability bound" and the particular number Dembski gives is Dembski's philosophy dissertation published as a monograph through Cambridge University Press. I am not aware of any citations of that work in the cryptographic literature. For a detailed account of the paucity of Dembski's contributions to math and information theory, see Jeffrey Shallit's expert report in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case last year. Wesley R. Elsberry 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken. This article is exactly backwards. As you point out, the concept is due originally to Emile Borel in the context of intractability.   This was before theories of intractability based on computational complexity were developed in th 70s, 80s and 90s. Thanks for pointing out this serious flaw. I will give it some thought and try to come up with some fix: A short term quick fix and maybe a long term solution with better references and historical perspective. However, if you (or anyone else for that matter) wants to deal with this in, go ahead.--CSTAR 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I don't know anything about the subject matter of the article but it reads as if it is Dembski's idea, in fact the whole article reads like a close up of one of his theories. Shouldn't this be put on the William Dembski article.  Especially in view of the fact that no one out side of the IDC camp views Dembski as having any talent for or understanding of numbers and math.  Mr Christopher 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The term is, as best I can tell, Dembski's creation. Most mathematicians would tell you it's not well defined. But this rather vague idea is a rehash of the basic argument from improbability.
 * However, I don't see any reason why it should be moved; The same argument could be made specified complexity, another piece in Dembski's œuvre. Those moves would make the Dmebski article a veritable museum of Dembskiana. Aside from that, do you have a specific complaint about the article?--CSTAR 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No complaints, just an observation on my part. If I were more familiar with the subject matter the article might not have struck me as odd.  Thanks Mr Christopher 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We could get rid of it if there is a consensus, although I doubt it's a good idea. --CSTAR 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete?
Actually I'm not so sure anymore that it's a bad idea to get rid of this article, since it's just a variant of the basic argument from improbability. Should we put an WP:AfD tag on it? --CSTAR 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, keep it. This UPB is a primary concept of the maximum possible number of combinations of the whole universae over all time. This is foundational to addressing the "argument from ignorance" or "improbability vs impossibility" issues.DLH 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shallit Reference
Need to provide Shallit reference or delete sentence. See:

"Shallit furthermore thinks that Dembski's ideas are so flawed as to be irrepairable. "


 * The "Shallit" reference provided is actually to Elsberry.DLH 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From Elsberry link above, should this be: Shallit ?

Deleted: 'Improbable events are possible' as an objection to Dembski's probability
Deleted:

"Another objection to Dembski's use of the universe probability is based on the existence of observed specific outcomes of an experiment with arbitrary potential outcomes. For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening."

- This 'objection' just argues (fancily) that improbable things can happen. Why does it attempt to compare a probability of 10^-300 to 1? The latter is not a probability in the given example ('post hoc probability'). Victor (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

add something to end of the following?
"However evolution is not based on random events only (genetic drift), but also on natural selection."

The additions that further skewer Dembski's ideas are: 1. the event leading to the end product happen sequentially with intermediate selection and 2. that there are unknown number of end products that would produce sentient life capable of entertaining these questions.

In effect, Dembski and others see a lotto number like:

0123

where order matters and produces an end state something like sentient life and assuming that the probability of this occurring is:

(1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)=1/10000

They do not realize that if selection was applied to each number sequentially then this number would be found in:

10+10+10+10=40 trials

The above illustrates my first point.

Further, Dembski assumes that only the number observed

0123

would "work".

For all he knows, the number 1111 would create life like our own or the number 2222 would produce sentient life that could entertain this question and be known the wiser.

Therefore, all of Dembski's calculations are fallacious. The probability of a cell forming here on Earth and then evolving to fill our biosphere as we see it is incalculable in principle and all scientists that understand mathematics and are committed to following evidence understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.157.35 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)