Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 3:52 PM
94 online now:
dwise1, glowby, kbertsche, kjsimons, PaulK (5 members, 89 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,662 Year: 21,268/21,208 Month: 1,701/2,326 Week: 156/881 Day: 78/78 Hour: 9/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
JonF
Member
Posts: 3895
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 196 of 220 (694390)
03-24-2013 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 11:04 AM


Re: Improbability and time
Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time.

Actually, that's known as Borel's Law and you have mangled it in standard creationist fashion. Nobody who understands it claims that when the odds against something are bigger than that it can't happen. Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Look at the arrangement produced. The odds against that arrangement being produced are much greater than 1050, in fact it's a little bigger than 8*1067.

But there it is. Do you think it's impossible to shuffle a deck of cards?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:04 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM JonF has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 197 of 220 (694394)
03-24-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 11:04 AM


Re: Improbability and time
Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time.

Well, that statement is strictly true, but in order that it not be misleading we should add the caveat that it's "considered mathematically impossible" by innumerate people rather than by mathematicians.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:04 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 03-24-2013 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 198 of 220 (694401)
03-24-2013 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 2:54 PM


wrong word
I don't think the use of "idiots" is at all appropriate. Anytime of course but more here than some places.

Infinity isn't always easy for people to wrap their head around. It is easy to say something quickly and get it wrong. It doesn't require that one be an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:55 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 199 of 220 (694412)
03-24-2013 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by AdminNosy
03-24-2013 3:12 PM


Re: wrong word
Better?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 03-24-2013 3:12 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 200 of 220 (694434)
03-24-2013 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by JonF
03-24-2013 2:19 PM


Re: Improbability and time
Thank you for the education regarding Borel's Law. That was interesting reading. I do not have the reference in front of me that spoke on the mathematical impossibility so I cannot refer back to it.

Also, the issue of shuffling a deck of cards is interesting. While I can see that a random shuffle would result in a statistically rare order, the number you provided seems incredibly high.

However, even if true the examples I have provided still hold. If a random letter generator (not live monkeys because we know that would never work) attempted to reproduce a single Shakespearean sonnet, it would fail even in infinite time. A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.

Plus, some keys have to be struck at the same time. You have to hold down the 'shift' key while striking another letter to produce a capital. A random letter generator, programmed to randomly produce capitals, would no doubt produce capitals in the wrong places.

It is impossible to produce a Shakespearean sonnet at random even in infinite time.

Edited by designtheorist1, : Typos!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:19 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 7:09 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 12:50 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 208 by JonF, posted 03-25-2013 7:38 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Theodoric, posted 03-26-2013 3:18 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12974
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 201 of 220 (694435)
03-24-2013 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:54 PM


Re: Improbability and time
You do realise that with infinite attempts, anything with a finite probability is expected to happen an infinite number of times ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM PaulK has responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 202 of 220 (694441)
03-24-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
03-24-2013 12:44 PM


Penrose has rejected a naturalistic Big Bang
That isn't true. Penrose doesn't says ANYTHING about natural causes in the clip you posted.

Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic." Penrose admits this is incredible organization of the early universe.

Penrose is an atheist. His view on the organization of the early universe has caused him to reject the usual view of the Big Bang. In his book Cycles of Time, he has proposed the previously debunked Cycle Theory with some twists.

While Penrose's Cycle Theory does not work, he is right that the early universe could not have come about by chance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 03-25-2013 2:50 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 203 of 220 (694442)
03-24-2013 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
03-24-2013 7:09 PM


Re: Improbability and time
That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 7:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 12:45 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 03-25-2013 2:55 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 209 by JonF, posted 03-25-2013 7:43 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 204 of 220 (694456)
03-25-2013 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:27 PM


Re: Improbability and time
That is tenet of faith ...

That's a funny way of saying "obvious fact".

... for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity.

That's a funny way of saying "mathematicians".

I believe the view is demonstrably false.

But not so demonstrable that it can be demonstrated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 205 of 220 (694457)
03-25-2013 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:54 PM


Re: Improbability and time
A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.

Yes I could expect it. I could expect it do do so 0.75619 of the time, which is a small number but not zero. I could expect this precisely because the generator is random.

You just don't understand probability theory. There's no shame in this, but there is something a little bit shameful about lecturing other people on it, this being the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12974
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 206 of 220 (694467)
03-25-2013 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:25 PM


Re: Penrose has rejected a naturalistic Big Bang
quote:

Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic."

Chance has two distinct meanings. The more common one - which Penrose is using refers to the absence of any constraining regularities. For instance if you let go of a rock and it falls to the ground it is not chance that the atoms making up the rock all happen to follow a quite similar path downwards after you release it. Gravity and the chemical bonds holding the rock together constrain it.

Granted that chance is sometimes used to refer to the absence of intelligent guidance but clearly Penrose is not using that meaning - because to do so he would have to deal with the issue of natural constraints - and he does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:25 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12974
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 207 of 220 (694468)
03-25-2013 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:27 PM


Re: Improbability and time
quote:

That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.

No, it's the result of mathematics.

For any probability p the number of expected successes given t trials is p.t (i.e. p multiplied by t).

Do you disagree with that ?

If not, can you give a finitely low p, where p > 0 and given infinite t p.t < 1 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3895
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 208 of 220 (694481)
03-25-2013 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:54 PM


Re: Improbability and time
If a random letter generator (not live monkeys because we know that would never work) attempted to reproduce a single Shakespearean sonnet, it would fail even in infinite time.

Nope, as others have pointed out many times. You obviously have no clue when it comes to probability. Please don't make probabilistic claims until you understand some basic probability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3895
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 209 of 220 (694482)
03-25-2013 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:27 PM


Re: Improbability and time
That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false

So demonstrate already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
GrimSqueaker
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 137
From: Ireland
Joined: 03-15-2013


Message 210 of 220 (694489)
03-25-2013 8:21 AM


I dunno if this is something people have considered but if you use 10th dimensional thinking possibility and chance are very interesting, check this out and see what you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=youtub...

Might clear up some of the infinty problems

Edit : I realise this isn't wholly relevant but it helped me greatly when I was trying to broaden my mind and imagination to accommodate some pretty big ideas

Edited by GrimSqueaker, : No reason given.


    
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017