Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Probability Models

Expand Messages
  • Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
    The notion of “randomness” and creationary science continues to arise. Statistical models are the mainstay of modern science, where the claim is that
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 2, 2011
      The notion of “randomness” and creationary science continues to arise. Statistical models are the mainstay of modern science, where the claim is that nature is not exact but only probabilistic in character. The philosophic notion of randomness is necessary for such pronouncements. Randomness is only indirectly established for specific cases. In one of the more difficult results to establish, it’s shown that, in general, predicted probabilistic behavior is the product of a pure ultralogic. In terms of translating thoughts into reality, the high-intelligence signature being displayed is not a higher-intelligence extension of any human form of intelligence. It can only be applied by God. As a rather significant example, this is applied to any distribution as well. In the paper below I extend the my published paper so as to include the collapse of the wave function showing that the Copenhagen interpretation also has an higher-intelligence signature. In section 5, I show by example how such assumed random sequences of events or non-events that ultimately converge to specific probabilities for occurrence can be formally designed by a higher-intelligence.

      So modern science cannot eliminate God’s control and sustaining power by expressing all their findings in terms of randomness and probability models. Indeed, the opposite holds. Such behavior is a very strong indication for God continuous control.

      http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112037

      Dr. Bob


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • hugenex2000
      ... Eugene: I looked at the paper you have published but I do not know calculus well enough to make heads or tales of it. Being self educated myself I have yet
      Message 2 of 2 , May 11 9:15 AM
        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D." <drrah@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > The notion of “randomness” and creationary science continues to arise. Statistical models are the mainstay of modern science, where the claim is that nature is not exact but only probabilistic in character. The philosophic notion of randomness is necessary for such pronouncements. Randomness is only indirectly established for specific cases. In one of the more difficult results to establish, it’s shown that, in general, predicted probabilistic behavior is the product of a pure ultralogic. In terms of translating thoughts into reality, the high-intelligence signature being displayed is not a higher-intelligence extension of any human form of intelligence. It can only be applied by God. As a rather significant example, this is applied to any distribution as well. In the paper below I extend the my published paper so as to include the collapse of the wave function showing that the Copenhagen interpretation also has an higher-intelligence signature. In section 5, I show by example how such assumed random sequences of events or non-events that ultimately converge to specific probabilities for occurrence can be formally designed by a higher-intelligence.
        >
        > So modern science cannot eliminate God’s control and sustaining power by expressing all their findings in terms of randomness and probability models. Indeed, the opposite holds. Such behavior is a very strong indication for God continuous control.
        >
        > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112037
        >
        > Dr. Bob
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        Eugene: I looked at the paper you have published but I do not know calculus well enough to make heads or tales of it. Being self educated myself I have yet to go further than algebra. I do know a bit about probabilities and statistics using what math I do know and have applied it towards calculating the probabilities of certain genetic sequences arising in DNA. From a minimum genome set of genes necessary for the function of the simplest self replicating biological cell I have made a back of the envelope calculation similar to that done in the 1966 Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia only they calculated from the amino acid protein sequences whereas I calculated from the DNA sequences which code for those proteins using the minimum genome set from the Minimum Genome Project. Some of the estimates I used involved trying to allow for "codon bias" (if you don't know what that is I would be happy to explain what it is and why it is relevant).
        Anyway, what I am getting at is my presentation of the rough calculations I have done. To give you an idea of what those calculations included you can check out my YouTube video if you will:
        http://youtu.be/RN-CjcpMnDs

        Eugene,
        NewCreationist.blogspot.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.