digplanet beta 1: Athena
Share digplanet:


Applied sciences






















A universal probability bound is a probabilistic threshold whose existence is asserted by William A. Dembski and is used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. It is defined as "A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in."[1]

Dembski asserts that one can effectively estimate a positive value which is a universal probability bound. The existence of such a bound would imply that the occurrence of certain kinds of random events whose probability lies below this value can be rejected, given the resources available in the entire history of the universe. Contrapositively, Dembski uses the threshold to argue that the occurrence of certain events cannot be attributed to chance alone. Universal probability bound is then used to argue against random evolution. However evolution is not based on random events only (genetic drift), but also on natural selection.

The idea that events with fantastically small, but positive probabilities, are effectively negligible[2] was discussed by the French mathematician Émile Borel primarily in the context of cosmology and statistical mechanics.[3] However, there is no widely accepted scientific basis for claiming that certain positive values are universal cutoff points for effective negligibility of events. Borel, in particular, was careful to point out that negligibility was relative to a model of probability for a specific physical system.[4][5]

Dembski appeals to cryptographic practice in support of the concept of the universal probability bound, noting that cryptographers have sometimes compared the security of encryption algorithms against brute force attacks by the likelihood of success of an adversary utilizing computational resources bounded by very large physical constraints. An example of such a constraint might be obtained for example, by assuming that every atom in the known universe is a computer of a certain type and these computers are running through and testing every possible key. However, universal measures of security are used much less frequently than asymptotic ones.[6] The fact that a keyspace is very large is useless if the cryptographic algorithm used has vulnerabilities which make it susceptible to other kinds of attacks.[7]

Dembski's estimate[edit]

Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:[8][9]

  • 1080, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
  • 1045, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
  • 1025, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

Thus, 10150 = 1080 × 1045 × 1025. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

Dembski has recently (as of 2005) refined his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities:[10]

  • An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10120 elementary logic operations on a register of 1090 bits[11][12]
  • The (variable) rank complexity of the event under consideration.[13]

If the latter quantity equals 10150, then the overall universal probability bound corresponds to the original value.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy (1999)
  2. ^ Negligible means having probability zero. Effectively negligible means, roughly, that in some operational sense or in some computational sense, the event is indistinguishable from a negligible one.
  3. ^ Émile Borel, Elements of the Theory of Probability (translated by John Freund), Prentice Hall, 1965, Chapter 6. See also Citations from Borel's articles.
  4. ^ Though Dembski credits Borel for the idea, there is clear evidence that Borel, following accepted scientific practice in the foundations of statistics, was not referring to a universal bound, independent of the statistical model used.
  5. ^ Cobb, L. (2005) Borel's Law and Creationism, Aetheling Consultants.
  6. ^ For a precise definition of effective negligibility in cryptography, see Michael Luby, Pseudorandomness and Cryptographic Applications, Princeton Computer Science Series, 1996.
  7. ^ Though Dembski repeatedly appeals to cryptography in support of the concept of the universal probability bound, in practice cryptographers hardly use measures which are in any way related to it. A more useful concept is that of work factor. See p. 44, A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press, 1996.
  8. ^ William A. Dembski (1998). The Design Inference pg 213, section 6.5
  9. ^ William A. Dembski (2004). The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design pg 85
  10. ^ William A. Dembski (2005). ""Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence (382k PDF)".
  11. ^ Seth Lloyd, Computational Capacity of the Universe, arXiv:quant-ph/0110141 v1
  12. ^ The number 1090 seems to play no role in Dembski's analysis, On page 23 of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, Dembski says
    "Lloyd has shown that 10120constitutes the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history."
  13. ^ The rank complexity is Dembski's φ function which ranks patterns in order of their descriptive complexity. See specified complexity.

Original courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound — Please support Wikipedia.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.
57 videos foundNext > 

Indexed Universal Life -- The Mortality Mechanics

Steve's special guest is Bobby Samuelson, life insurance industry consultant. Bobby regularly presents to industry groups such as the International Forum, ValMark Securities, Partners Financial,...

8.6 - Lower Bound for Comparison Based Sorting - Linear Time Selection - [DSA 1] By Tim Roughgarden

Complete Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ4kxINdXvQ&list=PLLH73N9cB21W1TZ6zz1dLkyIm50HylGyg For any query you can comment it! We try our best to answer them! Please do "like" ...

Lec 8 | MIT 6.046J / 18.410J Introduction to Algorithms (SMA 5503), Fall 2005

Lecture 08: Universal Hashing, Perfect Hashing View the complete course at: http://ocw.mit.edu/6-046JF05 License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA More information at http://ocw.mit.edu/terms...

Universal Quantifier, Existential Quantifier, Inference Rule for Quantifiers

Complete set of Video Lessons and Notes available only at http://www.studyyaar.com/index.php/module/34-logic-and-propositions Predicates, Universal Quantifier, Existential Quantifier, Example,...

Probability Density for a Classical Harmonic Oscillator

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ProbabilityDensityForAClassicalHarmonicOscillator The Wolfram Demonstrations Project contains thousands of free interactive visualizations, with new entries...

Free and Bound Variables: Solved Problems

Discrete Math 1 - Tutorial 37 - Quantifiers

Quantifiers, Existential Quantifier, Universal Quantifier Please comment, rate and subscribe. :) Follow us on twitter : https://twitter.com/#!/coursehack Become a fan on facebook : https://www.fa...

TI-84 normalcdf function (calculating area under a normal distribution curve)

This tutorial shows you how to use the normalcdf function of the TI-84 or TI-83 graphics calculator to determine the area between an upper and lower limit under a normal distribution curve...

Probabilistic Quantifier Logic for General Intelligence

Indefinite probabilities are a novel technique for quantifying uncertainty, which were created as part of the PLN (Probabilistic Logic Networks) logical inference engine, which is a key component...

Ankur Moitra: Pareto Optimal Solutions for Smoothed Analysts

Video from Beyond Worst Case Analysis, Stanford, CA Sept 19-21, 2011 Ankur Moitra: Pareto Optimal Solutions for Smoothed Analysts Consider an optimization problem with $n$ binary variables...

57 videos foundNext > 

10 news items

Discovery Institute

Discovery Institute
Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:26:15 -0700

Dembski goes so far as to calculate a "universal probability bound" that sets the bar for design extremely high. To infer design, one would have to exceed a probability of one chance in 10150. No known event in the entire universe through its entire ...
Discovery Institute (blog)
Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:38:11 -0700

As a result, ID proponents have often discussed a complicated technical concept called the "universal probability bound," which is basically a measure of the probabilistic resources available over the history of the universe. In books including No Free ...
Discovery Institute
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:15:00 -0700

If we answer design, the design filter must be applied to test the inference. Do these biological mechanisms possess specified information of sufficient complexity to surpass the universal probability bound? If so, then chance and natural law can be ...
Discovery Institute
Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:27:59 -0700

My universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150 (a perennial sticking point for Shallit and Felsenstein) therefore becomes irrelevant in the new form of conservation of information whereas in the earlier it was essential because there a certain ...
Discovery Institute
Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:48:10 -0700

... that getting a cell by chance under the best possible conditions falls far, far outside the universal probability bound (UPB) of one chance in 10 to the 150th power. It's virtually impossible anywhere in the universe at any time. Blind searching is ...
Discovery Institute
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:35:12 -0800

But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 -- below the "universal probability bound," a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe ...
Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:59:15 -0700

His calculations find the probability of the flagellum assembling by chance to be 10-1170, a probability far below what he considers a threshold for highly improbably events or “universal probability bound”. Thus, argues Demsbki, the flagellum must be ...
Discovery Institute
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:08:56 -0800

In closing, Lönnig cites further to Behe's concept of irreducible complexity and Dembski's arguments regarding the universal probability bound, contending that the ICS may be beyond the edge of evolution. Nevertheless, he leaves the present question ...

Oops, we seem to be having trouble contacting Twitter

Support Wikipedia

A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia. Please add your support for Wikipedia!

Searchlight Group

Digplanet also receives support from Searchlight Group. Visit Searchlight