Praying is an attempt to influence probability in coming events, I am pretty convinced now that the nameless God of the ancient monotheist Hebrews is Probability itself.

That nameless monotheistic Hebrew God is non other than probability. One prays to influence inevitable coming events and their outcomes. If you were going to give probability a name and anthropomorphize it I guess you could call it good luck but that would not include other kinds of luck including bad luck and no luck at all. There are good luck gods in plenty of other religions. If you were not going to name one it would be because it was the embodiment of probability. That may not sound very scientific but considering the number of times people around the world pray every minute of every day it actually maybe an important insight. It is sort of the same type of analogy the string theory believers are found of using . String theory is an analogy type of science and it has something in common with conditional probability as a major underlying dimension of cosmic reality. String theory actually has less science and mathematics behind it. Maybe you can calibrate various strings with frequency and wave but that is pretty arbitrary. Probability can easily be calculated in advance knowing as many of the known or knowable variables on the onset of any attempts. Praying is the magical thinking hoping for a favored or more favored outcome rather than just any outcome. Still knowing there is a multiplicity of possible outcomes is entirely different than saying a string in some tone or frequency is going to match. We can calculate the probability of life existing on earth sort of but can't say it evidences itself because of harmonics in nature.

Weather "Conditions" signify probabily! Never really thought about that before....

Did you know we use the word "condition" and "conditions" to describe the weather . The reason why is that weather is conditional on probability. Probability determines the weather . That is why we can have normal conditions that are in an average range and statistical outliers in either very calm or extraordinarily raging. Weather is incremental we mostly have chronological posting of "conditions" from various weather stations and we chart those incremental changes. Average has it own trend over time but that does not prevent statistical analysis showing extremes much of the time and even conflicting with what we see as normal seasonality. It is amazing I never before linked the idea that weather conditions are using a word that is all about probability. The idea of weather conditions says that weather is all about probability. Those that worship a god that regulates the weather and fertility are just worshiping probability as I said before. If God is anything he is probability as a dimension of reality.

Probablility is 100 Percent of the Tme an Expectation of Coincidence.

Every outcome in probability is a coincidence. Every coincidence can me made into a mater of calculation of probabilities. Sooner or later every possible coincidence should occur. It seems to us humans that unexpected things happing when something else is happening is a coincidence is only a fallacy . Why shouldn't coincidences always be occurring. When it comes to our genes being replicated in all the cells in our body that certainly would not be a coincidence. It seems like a coincidence when you meet you aunt by accident as a tourist on the other side of the world? Well maybe not. Not a coincidence at all . If all the laws of physics and of the natural order of things can work in multiple locations and even beyond at great distances in the cosmos, then the probability says it makes perfect sense. As it happens everything else that happens that we don't consider to be any special type of coincidence is also just as much of a coincidence itself.

Simple Proof Shows Entropy Does Not Exist.

If Entropy or the tendency towards system decline exists as a law of nature, thermodynamics then that law of nature and definition has to be modified. My thinking is that the modification is to say limited entropy in fixed systems probably exists. The problem is the notion of the entire universe tending toward an entropic state does not have supporting data. Where do I find supporting data? I say there is at least , maybe at most 14 billion years of supporting data. That is 14 billion years of light transmissions to telescopes on and around the earth. The 14 billion light year distance is a bit of an absurd number since galaxies thought to be in the deepest cosmic field have structures that are exactly the same as much more "modern" galaxies much closer to the earth in light years. We can immediately extend the age of the universe knowing that deep field galaxies are seen after 14 billion years of light transmission because it might take a galaxy more than a few billion years to assume that form as it does with more modern closer galaxies. Aside from that problem of distances and suspected age of the universe as a discrepancy of science, entropy as a law of physics also finds itself in question. One should expect, if entropy is a rule and law of nature that a galaxy a few million light years from earth should have more indicators of entropy in longer term decline than a more ancient galaxy some fallaciously assume was quickly generated after the big bang about 14 billion years ago. That is absurd since the deep field is in all direction around us and not concentrated at some spot in the sky where everything could have originated. Entropy if it existed would mean that the laws of physics should be quite different in the deepest most ancients corners of the known universe especially if there had been a big bang. The familiar structures of spiral and barred galaxies we see at close range are visible in the dark field only there they can appear to be closer together. So if we want to prove that entropy is correct we must do the following: 1. We need to prove that the laws of physics and nature are not the same the further we go back in cosmic history. 2. we need to prove that more modern manifestations of physics has suffered a decline in regenerative traits over time such that we, if we assume we are the most modern phase of cosmic reality , are in an entropic decline more than more a more structured past. 3. We need to figure out why our laws of physics and our perceptions about mathematic order in our physical reality are able to regenerate themselves. 4. We have to have an experiment where not just a system declines but where laws of physics just stop working or work more intermittently. No such experiment exists. For a while cold fusion experimentation seemed to be something like that but more ongoing tests showed a tendency for labs to repeat results. Where can we find an example of a decline from which no regeneration of patterns was possible longer term? Not from the astronomical data we have going back some 14 billion years. The conclusion is the proof that astronomical data assuming the most distant galaxies and cosmic features are time gone by or even some sort of time machine where we look back into the distant past because there is no entropy in any of that data. What then is entropy? It can remain the second law of thermodynamics but has to be modified as defined. Entropy is a decline in a thermodynamic system one with set non regenerative reflexive properties. A bomb blows up. Energy is released and the bomb is not going to regenerate itself after the explosion to repeat the cycle. It maybe true that a star or a galaxy blowing up also might not immediately be able to regenerate itself. There can still be system entropy just not cosmic laws of physics progressive entropy.

Casino's have the edge, in the long run the house always wins. Probability in casinos is fixed. In their electronic slot machines the entire process of having odds and probability is simulated.

Nature, the regulating laws of nature, is the house of probability simulated or natural if you prefer. Nature also has fixed odds and those odds favor nature being what nature is. It is the casino and their electronic and mechanical games, even decks of cards, that simulate probability. Even if not simulated nature's probability and odds favor the house of nature. It is clear that the reason why chemists , physicists, biologists can repeat the same results in the same experiment by multiple scientists in multiple locations is quite simply because where the variables are limited the games are fixed. The fact that I can reproduce the results of so many experiments under the same experimental conditions as the original experiments tells us that the odds favor the house of nature. Now I get what Einstein meant by "God does not play dice with the universe." God's Casino is a place where the odds favor the house. I have started working out an entire 100 percent mathematics religion Where probability itself is God. I may end up building the world's largest casino house of worship that is 100 percent tax free as a religious organization. In both Japan and China their temples had in them a kind of game of chance which happens to be a very ancient ritual. If you pray to God you are trying to influence probability possibly. The odds are you would exist and that you won't.

If There Was 100 percent certainty in the Universe we would not need probabilty.

If There was 100 percent certainty in the Universe we would not need probability. Maybe there is 100 percent certainty?    Probability is an interesting concept which seems to pertain to assaying the future rather than analyzing the past. It is pretty clear that if we know what happened in the past everything that happened was 100 percent certain so long as memory is good.  What is the probability of getting 4 Aces in a poker hand verses what was the probability of having that exact hand in a particular hand?  It was 100 percent certain because the event occurred.  Probability of that 4 aces card hand is not possible to change after the event occurs.  You can speculate about other possibilities that never happened . Yes the odds would be what future probability would be except all the hands of cards ever dealt are now history and cannot be changed.  There fore the past is at least theoretically 100% certain even if we don't have a clear memory of all of it or any of it.    The future is completely speculative and that is where probability seems to become most useful.  Probability allows us to predict future outcomes at least to some degree.  If this becomes a principle of physics then if we look back in space and time with astronomy then the probability of any of it is irrelevant.

Conditional Probability and Cosmology go back in history a long long way. God is the ultimate slot machine?

The question is when it comes to God being the ultimate slot machine the question is whether that slot machine runs with simulated probability or real open ended probability?   Of course it is natural probability .  A mistake of physicists is in thinking that probability somehow has to be simulated the way we humans game it: 


http://www.openbible.info/topics/all_things_are_possible  And yes I am not the first one to make this observation.  "With God, Jesus, all things are possible."   That really is saying the same thing except when it comes to conditional probability we see much of it starting with gravity which has a very high level of probability of occurrence.  Gravity seems to rule the universe in a way that that it independently can become the catalyst of much greater things and systems.


http://www.openbible.info/topics/all_things_are_possible

Gravity would seem to be the primary cause of most empirical probability. What is empirical probability?

What is Empirical Probability anyway?    Empirical Probability is where the 2nd law of thermodynamics goes badly wrong.  Usually it appears that gravity is responsible.  My research, given the thermodynamic  radiometer proof that gravity's is the net input of energy into a system or conglomeration actually transforms the laws of thermodynamics in a way I never initially realized.  So then the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not only flawed and in need of  a law to replace it.  Entropy is really at severe risk of disappearing as a viable concept.  That is because simple convergence of energy at a point is enough to contradict the whole scientific concept of entropy.  Well what then is a point?  A point is the convergence of energy and we know that energy will not converge without mass being available as  a means of "inducting" it.  If we refresh the idea that mass and energy can be converted from one to the other then a point is simply energy plus mater know to be converted to energy under the right conditions.)  So like the summation equation from the new laws of physics I published years ago, E + M*=P such that E is free energy added to a Mass form of energy for the total energy of the entire system P which is our point.  Sounds way too obvious?   since I originally published that thesis I never got around to updating it with some sense that maybe Mass is not converted to just energy but maybe has other components or does not actually convert at all given the mass defect problem.  In which case E + M*** = P so it really does not mater except that it destroys Entropy as viable scientific concept. 


With the best of our labeling super novae's phenomenology seen in Hubble telescope photographs we see anything but entropy result.  We see bilateral symmetry.  That is still empirical probability. I actually reinterpret those photos as being the aftermath of giant collisions and not of dying stars because of that bilateral symmetry.  The issue being entropy is that the destruction of a star in a super nova is anything but tending toward entropy given that all too obvious symmetry which has almost the appearance of a mirror image to it.  What we actually see is a more orderly event where total destruction of an enormous entity is enabling empirical probability with an almost infinite discharge of energy and an almost infinite destruction of mater, system, perhaps even time and space. 


The gravitational center is being discharged but at the same time we see eddies forming in the aftermath at a cold distance from the center of discharge.  Entropy if it exists in the explosion  , the moment of explosion or the event of super nova is very short lived.  A super nova should be the ultimate entropy event?  The observed symmetry raises grave concerns for the future of the 2nd law of thermodynamics until I have modified it as :  "Empirical probability is the future of any thermodynamic system."  Now don't quote me on that yet.  I have not got the right semantics yet.  It took a long time to advance to the concept and nomenclature of Empirical probability from multi variable probability (which it still is) .  Maybe the correct term is Retropy. or Reretropy. Yes It is Retropy.  Lex Retropy to be exact.  Retropy means regrowth of a system because empirical probability is one of the basic dimensions of the cosmos.  It is because components of mass and of energy whether the same or different have inherent empirical probability as the nature of their structures which is why multi variable probability with the semblance of order in the cosmos is a basic dimension.  It is the component of reality that frames our reference.


Something that frames our reference is generic probability of energy and mass as energy but because of mass defect I suspect that really the core of what makes mater different from energy is the probability dimension.  This maybe the reason why energy has no effect in space until it is absorbed or interacts with mass.  That little key to the universe is a sub atomic particle I will call the Lexitrophe in a process of Lexitrophiphy. It is the cause of retropy and reretropy which the apparent entropy of retropy.  The only reason we have any frame of reference is because of Euclidean like points in space where mater and energy combine or where energy combines to form mater and where mater takes a form that leads to predictable probabilities like symmetry.

Empirical Probability Theorem , The Undoing of Entropy and the Undoing of the second law of thermodynamics.

Empirical Probability theorem:   Empirical Probability Disproves The Second Law Of Thermodynamics And Also Demonstrates That Entropy Is A Temporary Condition  And Not A Final End Point of System Energy Nor Dispersal.   The proof is actually very simple:  Empirical Probability makes predictability of systems discernible  in advance where as Entropy is unpredictable and wanting. 

One example is a simulating random number generator.  Of course there is nothing random about random numbers generated by a generator because to be truly random they have to pass the test of randomness.  It is uncertain that random numbers actually exist in nature outside of our human capacity to facilitate them?  Simulated probability differs from Empirical probability because Simulated probability is designed to have an element of entropy in involved where as empirical probability as discerned in nature lends itself to vast potential predictability based on conditional probabilities of multiple variables. When this is simulated with artificial probability in a computer or a slot machine the simulation emphasizes a lack of predictability otherwise every player would win the game.

Empirical probability gives us the ability to  make very good predictions on a lot of things before they happen.  If Entropy was where everything was bound to go then our ability to predict probabilities would be impossible.  It requires no complicated proof  except to say we would not be able to predict the weather , the motion of stars and galaxies if entropy was a real phenomenon.

Striking out the second law of thermodynamics or modifying it we also need to add a third or forth law of thermodynamics that gravity is a property of thermodynamics.  That is a different story found on my other sites including Gravity is Hot and The New Laws of Physics by Lex Loeb.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that every energy transfer increases the entropy of the universe due to the loss of usable energy" Is incorrect.

Here is proof:    "*"    DID YOU SEE THAT?   LOOK AGAIN .  It is still there .  It looks just like this: "*"!    What is the point?  It is really basic empirical science.  You are looking at a computer screen of some sort and the original energy I expended to put that mark ("*") is able to be maintained right there where I put it in this paragraph.  So you say "Well the computer was never unplugged from the battery or the wall electric outlet.--It is regenerated constantly."  But that is not at all true. I typed the original "*" just like this one and the concept entered the computer memory even after I erased the page and turned off my computer.  You say well the digital /mechanical memory storage is anything but entropy.  That is correct.  Which is a part of the proof. The storage of this entire blurb is only recognized by computers and viewing devices as I wrote it in this form you are now witnessing because the computer recognizes statistical probability at some atomic or molecular level. Is it bits of binary logic that enables the coding in the storage system? Variables of statistical probability is all that makes this paragraph different than this shorter paragraph: 

"slkdfnl glkf wejklf, glkjsdf. glskdflsd, lkg  ,qickwe, slkdf, gk, slkjklkds" woeir"., soiern. "

Well, you say it just takes more time for the second law of thermodynamics to undo the original order and we all know that digital information storage degrades over time.  Actually it does not so long as it correctly passes from one memory system to the next. The paragraphs above may both be immortal and hence they are a perfect proof that entropy has an impossible task for itself in finding a state where all energy is unusable to maintain a system.  Systems don't degrade into a state of infinite chaos because that is only a temporary phase.  Every odd number is preceded by and followed by an even number .  That is not an accident or a man made contrivance.  Statistical probability requires it,  Ah then there is that number zero (0) but it is not a number or is it?  if zero is between one  and minus one that automatically makes it an even number.  You think I am joking? Numbers are about logic for representing what we do for counting.  The ultimate proof that entropy is nonsense and the second law of thermodynamics is erroneous , is to tell your physics professor that you figured it out zero is an even number.  Yes you will get a failing grade and it will cost you your academic career yet it is absolutely positively correct.  What does that have to do with the first paragraph and the proof that entropy is a complete misconception in physics and thermodynamics?   That is the simple part of the proof.  It is called Poof.   Poof is what a magician does. Poof and there is that "*" all over again . It came out of nothing only because zero is an even number.  The probability that zero is an odd number is zero like the zero itself. 

The probability that every other number in the scheme of numbers is odd or even is absolutely predictable and true if you count to infinity in positive digits or negative digits.  Systems may degrade from what seems more complex orders to what appears to be chaos then just when you think that is the case you see the formation of order  again.  It is not just life that seems to buck the theory of the second law of thermodynamics where: The second law of thermodynamics states that every energy transfer increases the entropy of the universe due to the loss of usable energy.  It is such strange phenomena of stars and galaxies being nearly exactly the same shapes and formations from a few light years away to billions of light years away.  Entropy should not lead you to that conclusion.

I set up a new experiment to prove the thesis.   The idea of the experiment was to see if I could get  a very long string to tie it sell in knots just by moving it in random motions.  And of course it did  but it did not do it every time if you had a limit on the window of time to conduct the experiment.  If there is no window of time, no limit of time, in inevitably will become knotted.  That is when multi-variables enter the picture because there is more than one way to become knotted or if you prefer the word tangled in itself.  There is more than one sequence that ends  up tangled.  You can attempt to make it a trick you perform once you realize the sequence of movements required as a motif.  That leads to the idea of a multi-variable generator or calculator. That is something like a computer that can record every possible game of chess that could ever be played.  There might even be a finite number of possible games that end in a draw or with check mate.  Newton had his objects that stayed at rest or stayed in motion and those are both probabilities of being an object in a universe where there is energy.  That is a binary probability right there.  In motion or at rest or both because of a frame of reference misunderstanding.  If I were to fix Newton's laws by adding a new very basic law of nature I would add one that says something like "randomness tends toward order if any smaller component part has any seed of order to begin with."  I would strike anything to do with entropy and say that there is no such thing as Irony.

The idea that we have one big infinite universe happens to be a coincidence:

I am getting even closer to figuring out how The probability of the symmetrical (yes this is a semantic transformation for good reason) is a basic dimension of cosmic reality.  I never thought I would get beyond the last intuition on the subject.  The mistake I was making was in not defining probability as a multi variable "coincidence".  Coincidence is a weird if not almost magical concept.  probability of events is actually just their coincidence and we keep a record of probabilities as events as statistics.  What it means is probability is always about coincidence.  When you go back to quantum mechanics and introduce probability it might be the coincidence of expectations or simply that you can have more than one identical water molecule if not gazillions of them and we do.  The fact or evidence or coincidence that we have so many identical molecules across the spectrum of possible combinations of atoms is the wholesale opposite of entropy.  Because you can have duplication running out to almost the infinite in number of anything is amazing as a large scale coincidence.  To think that there are water molecules billions of light years away that are exactly the same as the ones here that is not just coincidence it is super symmetry or imbedded symmetry and ubiquitous or seemingly so.  That does not explain how probability of coincidence is a constitutional dimension of cosmic reality but it does lead to a mathematical way to prove it.  There is yet one more major analogy and that has to do with basic symmetry observed in nature such that the northern hemisphere of a spherical planet or star seems to be the mirror image of the southern hemisphere and when we see a super nova we see symmetrical jets in opposite directions which would be very odd for anything entering a state of entropy.  The new law of physics is that Any semblance of order retained in entropy means there is no entropy. It can be symmetrical , bilateral, identical particles or similarities of coincidence.
Any coincidence would be any entanglement of atoms or molecules by valence or  just physical entanglement.  Disproving the existence of entropy is easy.  Showing why there is no entropy because probability of coincidence is an eternal dimension of many variables.  Don't worry I am never going to propose a probability wave to replace notions of gravity waves and other such nonsense .  It is clear that in some parts of the universe there is more convergence of coincidental probability than other parts.   That's more like string theory.  Maybe gravity is what makes coincidence possible by engaging things whether by attraction or least resistance theory