= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unknown comments on But There's Still A Chance, Right? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
The probability of the sequence : 7822752094267846045605461355143507490091149797709871032440019209442625103982294206404126088435480346
being generated by chance is one in a google.
Is there anyone who wants to conclude that it was not generated by chance?
The simple point: Eliezer's answer to the questioner that no, there's not still a chance, was wrong. In order to draw such a conclusion, he must first show that some other hypothesis will give a greater probability, and this other hypothesis must also have a sufficiently high prior probability.
Naturally, it is easy to satisfy these conditions in the debate between the evolution hypothesis and the random-DNA-coincidence hypothesis. But Eliezer did not do this. He invalidly attempted to conclude from the mere probability of the coincidence hypothesis, without any comparison with another hypothesis, that the coincidence hypothesis was false.
The probability of generating THAT SEQUENCE is enormously, nigh-incomprehensibly tiny.
The probability of generating A SEQUENCE LIKE THAT (which appears as patternless, which contains no useful information, which has a very high information entropy) is virtually 1.
If I generated another sequence and it turned out exactly identical to yours, that would indeed be compelling (indeed, almost incontrovertible) evidence that something other than random chance was at work.