Probability of nature coming up with Beethoven's 'Fate' by chance?

[shunyadragon]

The appropriate way to formulate this is to ask: "given everything that came before Beethoven beginning to write this (or any other) piece, what is the probability of writing this as opposed to some other composition?"

The chain from the Big Bang to any given current state is for all intents and purposes, zero. But over time, as the universe and then earth and then life, and then mammals, and then...so on and so on...occurred, the probability rose until that day when he sat down to compose and out came that piece, the probability was 100 percent, or so close as the make no difference.

Good post! Beethoven's music did not suddenly appear by the foolish notion of randomness and chance, which has not been observed in nature. Beethoven's music is product of a chain of cause and effect events of human creativity since before humans were first human. and of course since the beginning of our universe. It is easier to deal with the chain of cause and events human history. Music and simple musical instruments is found in the Neolithic cultures today. It is common to mimic birds, and compose music. Artistic creativity is shown to be an attribute of being human.In Europe the classical music evolved from folk music. Here is where the concept of fractal math (chaos theory) and the chain of cause and events limited by natural laws lead to compositions of music. Something like all maple leaves look like maple leaves, but no two maple leaves are alike. the natural progression of artistic music compositions will never be alike, but there would be a diversity of compositions of classic music. Given the chain of cause and effect events leading up to the time of Beethoven music the probability of classical music of similar or like music is probably 1.

 

[siti]

Let us please stick to actual statistical calculations only.

The probability of an event that has already happened is precisely 1 - no more, no less- and proves nothing at all about anything at all - except that ID proponents probably don't understand probability at all.

Nice music though!

 

[atanu]

The probability of an event that has already happened is precisely 1 - no more, no less- and proves nothing at all about anything at all - except that ID proponents probably don't understand probability at all.

Nice music though!

Well. I am not an ID person. Thank you for appreciating the music.

The question does not pertain to an event that has already happened. What is the probability of such a complicated composition coming up (beginning with a Big Bang scenario), if we assume a materialistic paradigm.

 

[Derek500]

Well. I am not an ID person. Thank you for appreciating the music.

The question does not pertain to an event that has already happened. What is the probability of such a complicated composition coming up (beginning with a Big Bang scenario), if we assume a materialistic paradigm.

1 in 1.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well. I am not an ID person. Thank you for appreciating the music.

The question does not pertain to an event that has already happened. What is the probability of such a complicated composition coming up (beginning with a Big Bang scenario), if we assume a materialistic paradigm.

As I mentioned going back to the event where or universe began, maybe Big Bang maybe no, makes probability a very complex and difficult consideration, but nonetheless from the beginning of humanity the probability of 'such a composition.' not necessarily Beethoven, but the diversity of musical compositions in human history is close to one. It would never be 0 since the beginning of our universe, because it in reality happened.

 

[Polymath257]

WHAT? Bach is the greatest. His music was intelligently designed by him. And I have proof The 50 Greatest Composers

Besides that, you can judge that I'm right for yourself

I have to admit that I have never liked Bach. I get about half way through this piece and start looking at the timer for when it will be over.

I'll take Beethoven, or even Mozart, any day of the week.

Whatever then.

The 7th is way better then the 9th, which fails in comparison to a Mahler symphony anyway

I haven't listened to much Mahler, but I agree about the 7th!

 

[Polymath257]

Excellent suggestion.

I nevertheless see a fatal flaw. You have assumed a-priori that there is no category called 'consciousness' separate from mechanism. How valid is that assumption? Your source of knowledge is empirical and with that you conclude absence of a category that is not empirical.

The brain data that you are talking of does not contain first party experience as datum. It does not contain experience of smell, taste, colour, sound, etc. etc.... By equating verbal report and their correlates as the only relevant data, you have wished away that which is the subject of investigation. IOW, although your data is limited to empirical domain, yet you conclude absence of that which is not empirical and can never be so.

Why do you think the brain doesn't have that information? We can often point to specific areas of the brain that process exactly those things.

More to the point, why complicate the ontology by introducing a separate consciousness when there is no reason to think that matter doesn't produce what we experience? it seems like an unnecessary complication given what we know of how the brain and mind function.

 

[Polymath257]

Well. I am not an ID person. Thank you for appreciating the music.

The question does not pertain to an event that has already happened. What is the probability of such a complicated composition coming up (beginning with a Big Bang scenario), if we assume a materialistic paradigm.

Again, be specific. That *particular* composition? The odds are almost zero if we start at the beginning. But then, the odds of humans arising are low also.

But that *some* artwork of comparable complexity would arise is very likely given how easy it is for life to get started (based on the one case we know) and the inevitable rise in complexity once it does. That intelligent life will *eventually* arise seems highly likely (it may take a few billion years, mind you) and once that happens, complex art is almost automatic.

Thisis a general issue when discussing probabilities: are you asking for the specific situation or are you looking for comparable situations?

So, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be on the side of the room that they are is incredibly low (remember there are quadrillions of molecules, so we are talking about 2^(-quadrillion) ). But that the molecules will have *some* arrangement filling up this room is quite high.

 

[atanu]

Again, be specific. That *particular* composition? The odds are almost zero if we start at the beginning. But then, the odds of humans arising are low also.

But that *some* artwork of comparable complexity would arise is very likely given how easy it is for life to get started (based on the one case we know) and the inevitable rise in complexity once it does. That intelligent life will *eventually* arise seems highly likely (it may take a few billion years, mind you) and once that happens, complex art is almost automatic.

In my opinion there may be hardly 100 to 500 such compositions (or less) that can be called music also.
...

PS: Many in this thread keep saying that probability that nature would throw up 'Fate' was 1, since it has already happened. Educate me please. If I toss a coin and get a tail, will that mean that probability of getting a tail on tossing a coin was 1? May be I am not getting a point.

 

[Polymath257]

In my opinion there may be hardly 100 to 500 such compositions (or less) that can be called music also.

And how many great paintings? How many pieces of music have we lost? How many great works of literature?

PS: Many in this thread keep saying that probability that nature would throw up 'Fate' was 1, since it has already happened. Educate me please. If I toss a coin and get a tail, will that mean that probability of getting a tail on tossing a coin was 1? May be I am not getting a point.

Once again, the probability dependent on the assumptions going in. After an event happened, the probability of that event is 1. The point is that, ultimately, all probabilities are conditional probabilities. And if the condition is that the event already happened, P(A|A)=1.

 

[atanu]

Why do you think the brain doesn't have that information? We can often point to specific areas of the brain that process exactly those things.

Well. A hard disk contains a lot of information.

More to the point, why complicate the ontology by introducing a separate consciousness when there is no reason to think that matter doesn't produce what we experience? it seems like an unnecessary complication given what we know of how the brain and mind function.

A good point that in fact works better in opposite way. The reason that we can be parsimonious in explaining is that we are intelligent. But, using that intelligence we throw it out of the scenario and introduce millions of molecules, their interactions, and billions of interpretations. That certainly is not correct application of the principle. OTOH, a non dual consciousness that encompasses all that we know directly or through report, is the most lean explanation. It does not kill consciousness and does not require any speculation. It does not violate any science too.

 

[atanu]

And how many great paintings? How many pieces of music have we lost? How many great works of literature?

That is vague.

Once again, the probability dependent on the assumptions going in. After an event happened, the probability of that event is 1. The point is that, ultimately, all probabilities are conditional probabilities. And if the condition is that the event already happened, P(A|A)=1.

So, suppose I get a tail, on tossing once. What is the probability of getting a tail by tossing a coin that has a head and a tail.

 

[Polymath257]

That is vague.

Agreed. As I said, the probability of *some* type of complex art arising eventually is very high. The specific composition is probably low.

So, suppose I get a tail, on tossing once. What is the probability of getting a tail by tossing a coin that has a head and a tail.

That is 1/2. But the probability of getting a tail *that time that you got a tail* is 1 after you got that tail.

 

[shunyadragon]

In my opinion there may be hardly 100 to 500 such compositions (or less) that can be called music also.

Your injecting a personal and cultural bias here as to what qualifies as music. The fractal nature of evolution demonstrates that in recent history there are thousands of variations of compositions that may be called music depending on the cultural and personal preference,

It is not fate that the compositions if Beethoven happened, but given the facts when you consider the wide range possible music compositions that do occur and possibly could occur in the evolution of music the probability is 1 or near one for similar music to be the result in many variations, which is actually what happens, regardless of whether Beethoven compositions are a part of the result or not.

There is a problem with probability used in this way and in the way ID proponents use it. It is too mechanistic, and does not take into consideration the factors that limit the possible options in the chain of cause and effect outcomes.

This argument parallels the problem of determinism versus free will in the chain of cause and effect relationships to their outcomes. The best fit is compatibilism where choices possibly occur, but prior chain of cause and effect outcomes and natural law have a greater effect than free will. This greatly reduces the effect of probability on the outcomes.

The other parallel is in the natural course of abiogenesis and evolution, which fundamentalists falsely apply probability to the natural outcomes of cause and effect relationships in natural outcomes. The bogus assertion of chance and randomness being causal comes into play here. Natural Laws and Natural environment are the only known cause of the outcomes objectively determined. The variation observed in the outcomes is fractal and has no causal effect on the outcomes.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That is vague.



So, suppose I get a tail, on tossing once. What is the probability of getting a tail by tossing a coin that has a head and a tail.

The probability of getting tails is .5 for a fair coin tossed fairly.

However, the odds of getting either heads or tails is 1.

After the toss, the chance of having gotten tails is still .5, but the result is 0 or 1 (heads, or tails).

No matter how many times you toss your coin, the probability on any given toss is 50 percent for a particular outcome, or 100 percent for all the alternatives (because heads and tails are not exactly .50 each...there is a very small chance that a coin will land and stay on its edge...but it's very unlikely, so we can basically ignore it until you're talking trillions of tosses).

But, no matter how improbable, once the sequence of tosses is complete to some given toss, the odds of getting one result is .5, an getting either, is 1.0 on that toss.

Yes it is highly improbable that starting the universe from scratch that Beethoven would compose that particular piece, but given the history of actual events leading up to that event (sometimes called path dependence), he would have written that, or something similar.

From the point he started the composition, there was an almost 100 percent probability that he would write some composition, but a very small probability that it would be exactly that composition.

As each note and phrase was tested and added, however, the probability became greater and greater that it would become that particular composition.

 

[siti]

What is the probability of such a complicated composition coming up (beginning with a Big Bang scenario), if we assume a materialistic paradigm.

Still 1.

 

[atanu]

The probability of getting tails is .5 for a fair coin tossed fairly.

However, the odds of getting either heads or tails is 1.

After the toss, the chance of having gotten tails is still .5, but the result is 0 or 1 (heads, or tails).

No matter how many times you toss your coin, the probability on any given toss is 50 percent for a particular outcome, or 100 percent for all the alternatives (because heads and tails are not exactly .50 each...there is a very small chance that a coin will land and stay on its edge...but it's very unlikely, so we can basically ignore it until you're talking trillions of tosses).

But, no matter how improbable, once the sequence of tosses is complete to some given toss, the odds of getting one result is .5, an getting either, is 1.0 on that toss.

Yes. Why most posters are not so straightforward?

Yes it is highly improbable that starting the universe from scratch that Beethoven would compose that particular piece, but given the history of actual events leading up to that event (sometimes called path dependence), he would have written that, or something similar.

Great.

 

[atanu]

Still 1.

How do you compute that. Will you kindly explain?

 

[atanu]

Agreed. As I said, the probability of *some* type of complex art arising eventually is very high. The specific composition is probably low.

Agree.

That is 1/2. But the probability of getting a tail *that time that you got a tail* is 1 after you got that tail.

Thanks.

 

[siti]

How do you compute that. Will you kindly explain?

The probability of an event that has already happened is 1 - it makes no difference how you attempt to explain it - blind chance, reductive materialism or divine intent...

I'm guessing (but despite your applauding straightforwardness in other's comments I am still at a loss to understand the point you are trying to make) that you want us to imagine ourselves back at the moment of the Big Bang and compute the odds of a particular piece of music composing itself naturally without taking into account any of the natural events that intervened in the ensuing 13.7 billion years? But why? Nobody outside the psych ward would argue that this is what happened...

...Anyway - here's what I really think happened - an unbelievably long process of impossibly messy, complicated, nested, overlapping, entangled and - possibly essentially, certainly practically - unpredictable events led to Beethoven sitting down to compose a score that was but an imperfect symbolic representation of what he imagined and by the time he wrote it down he had inevitably forgotten, adjusted, reordered or otherwise altered parts of it so that the finished score was nothing really like the original idea in his head, and which varies by greater or lesser degrees every time it is performed. We have no idea what Beethoven's 5th sounded like in his head - we know only how his attempt to capture it on paper is interpreted by modern day musicians. And there is great variation in that...

Actually I think Henri Bergson did a better job that I am when he wrote: “The finished portrait is explained by the features of the model, by the nature of the artist, by the colors spread out on the palette; but, even with the knowledge of what explains it, no one, not even the artist, could have foreseen exactly what the portrait would be, for to predict it would have been to produce it before it was produced - an absurd hypothesis which is its own refutation.” (Bergson, Creative Evolution, 1907)

Suggesting that a materialist (or naturalist) worldview cannot account for Beethoven's composition is like declaring science a failure because it can't derive the ten commandments from the standard model of particle physics. It is, quite literally, a pre-poster-ous argument.