questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am, successful scientist Dmitri Martila, am asking you: God is Luck?
Please look my arguments for this "mind-blowing" idea.
Luck does not contradict the Science of Statistics, because the latter always allows very rare events - statistical wonders.
Recall Dr. Kurt Gödel's second incompleteness theorem: one cannot prove the consistency of Mathematics. And since there is only one answer possible “Mathematics is inconsistent”, then it is truly inconsistent. But Kurt has excluded Luck. Then his incompleteness theorem is not working, and Mathematics with Luck is consistent.
The quantum entanglement of two particles can be explained by using Luck. If we have measured the spin of the first particle +1, then we are lucky enough to measure the spin -1 of the second particle. However, the probability of the latter event is 50 %.
If we have the probability of an event (or effect) as 40% or 50%, but this event (or effect) must necessarily happen (or be there), then we are dealing with Luck. This could explain even the abiogenesis in Scientific terms. Or why an asteroid or comet will never destroy humankind: the Universe requires an intelligent observer. Hereby the observation is not necessarily actual, but the Universe is observable and detectable ``in principle'', or in a ``thought experiments''.
``If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'' is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception. Then my paper proves the following answer: ``Yes''.
The “five sigma rule”, which was used to discover the Higgs Boson is the reliance on Luck. Why? It is scientific to accept beyond any doubt the existence of Higgs Boson (or any effect or particle in Particle Physics), if probability of mistake is less than that the five sigma-s give.
Random number generator gives probability of event A in one trial as 10%. But previous 1000 times was event B, not A happening. Hence, the expectancy, that in 1001-th time happens A is less than 1/1000 = 0.1 %. The difference between 0.1 % and 10% is explained by the influence of Luck (Bad, if A is desired, or Good if the A is not desired).
Consider the Fermi paradox: “absence of recordable life in cosmos, while the abiogenesis has to happen”. The romantic people look at night sky star systems and think, that the sky is full of life, because the chance for Earth to get alive were the same as chances for any suitable planet to bloom with living organisms. The Earth is alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider 10 suitable for life planets, the Earth and Mars are among them. The current time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living planet in this group of planets with probability 30 %, then the probability that the Earth gets alive is exactly these 30 %. Because the humans can live only there, where they are born. But Mars has not this advantage, hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30%=3%. The difference between 3% and 30 % is explained by Luck. This solves the Fermi paradox.
Please look my arguments for this "mind-blowing" idea.
Luck does not contradict the Science of Statistics, because the latter always allows very rare events - statistical wonders.
Recall Dr. Kurt Gödel's second incompleteness theorem: one cannot prove the consistency of Mathematics. And since there is only one answer possible “Mathematics is inconsistent”, then it is truly inconsistent. But Kurt has excluded Luck. Then his incompleteness theorem is not working, and Mathematics with Luck is consistent.
The quantum entanglement of two particles can be explained by using Luck. If we have measured the spin of the first particle +1, then we are lucky enough to measure the spin -1 of the second particle. However, the probability of the latter event is 50 %.
If we have the probability of an event (or effect) as 40% or 50%, but this event (or effect) must necessarily happen (or be there), then we are dealing with Luck. This could explain even the abiogenesis in Scientific terms. Or why an asteroid or comet will never destroy humankind: the Universe requires an intelligent observer. Hereby the observation is not necessarily actual, but the Universe is observable and detectable ``in principle'', or in a ``thought experiments''.
``If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'' is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception. Then my paper proves the following answer: ``Yes''.
The “five sigma rule”, which was used to discover the Higgs Boson is the reliance on Luck. Why? It is scientific to accept beyond any doubt the existence of Higgs Boson (or any effect or particle in Particle Physics), if probability of mistake is less than that the five sigma-s give.
Random number generator gives probability of event A in one trial as 10%. But previous 1000 times was event B, not A happening. Hence, the expectancy, that in 1001-th time happens A is less than 1/1000 = 0.1 %. The difference between 0.1 % and 10% is explained by the influence of Luck (Bad, if A is desired, or Good if the A is not desired).
Consider the Fermi paradox: “absence of recordable life in cosmos, while the abiogenesis has to happen”. The romantic people look at night sky star systems and think, that the sky is full of life, because the chance for Earth to get alive were the same as chances for any suitable planet to bloom with living organisms. The Earth is alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider 10 suitable for life planets, the Earth and Mars are among them. The current time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living planet in this group of planets with probability 30 %, then the probability that the Earth gets alive is exactly these 30 %. Because the humans can live only there, where they are born. But Mars has not this advantage, hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30%=3%. The difference between 3% and 30 % is explained by Luck. This solves the Fermi paradox.
