The Atheist Book Club discussion

Science > How Amazingly Unlikely Was Your Birth?

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Melki (new)

Melki | 211 comments Pretty darned amazing!

Note: entire chart should be enlarged and savored.

message 2: by Cora (new)

Cora Judd (corajudd) | 163 comments That's fantastic! Thanks for sharing :-)) (My 16 y/o son said it sort of depressed him -- it made me feel lucky!)

message 3: by Betsy (new)

Betsy Cool!

message 4: by [deleted user] (new)

Awesome! I'm definitely sharing :)

message 5: by Hazel (new)

Hazel | 214 comments I shared it pretty damn quick, and then a lass I knew asserted that the likelihood of her existing is 1:1. I can't believe I had to explain that there's a difference between the chance that you do exist, and the chance that you would come into existence before you were conceived, and that the maths is technically done in the past tense.

message 6: by Cora (new)

Cora Judd (corajudd) | 163 comments Shut UP, RC! You mean we're NOT special?

message 7: by Cora (new)

Cora Judd (corajudd) | 163 comments No worries and no rain -- your explanation enhances the poster! I saw the graphic as more of an artistic expression than a mathematical one; a minor celebration that we're here, today, alive!

message 8: by Hazel (last edited Nov 12, 2011 07:27AM) (new)

Hazel | 214 comments RC, I'd be interested in hearing a fuller explanation from you. I have to admit, statistics was rarely my strong point (I used to have trouble picking the right statistical test for uni work, even with a book to tell me which were best suited for what I was doing), and something did strike me as odd when I first looked at this, but I did the usual thing that most people do when it looks like other people do understand it all, which is to assume that I'm the ignorant one.

So, I'd be interested in a fuller explanation of whats wrong with it, preferably stated in a "for idiots" sort of way.

I did sort of do what Cora did, which was to ignore the actual numbers, and consider the overall intention.

message 9: by Hazel (last edited Nov 12, 2011 09:06AM) (new)

Hazel | 214 comments My ex was a mathematician, he was constantly trying to xplain stuff to me. He got really enthusiastic about it. I honestly believe you have to be a specific sort of person to understand maths beyond what we get taught at school. It takes genius, I'm convinced of that.

But I think I know what you mean. I think... is ti something along the lines that he should only work out the probability of each event, based on the assumption that previous events have come to pass, thus the probability of events needed to be in place for the next probabilty calculation can now be considered to be 1 in relation to the likelihood of the next event occuring?

message 10: by Hazel (new)

Hazel | 214 comments so, the only calculation that needs to be done is the likelihood that you'll survive being born?

message 11: by Tom (new)

Tom Lichtenberg squeeze in the general theory of relativity, and someone traveling just below and then just above the speed of light might calculate the odds as 0 and then 100 percent (or vice versa). of course, once you've been born, the odds are 100% that you would have been. all joking aside, aren't the odds of pretty much anything fifty-fifty?

message 12: by Lee (new)

Lee Harmon (DubiousDisciple) R.C. wrote: "all joking aside, aren't the odds of pretty much anything fifty-fifty?

If so, then I have been playing poker all wrong! :)"


back to top