Message 47 of 281 (675702)
10-15-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by zaius137
10-15-2012 1:42 AM
Re: don’t blow a gasket
Percy, I have honestly tried decipher your logic. If I am correct, you are trying to place the cart before the horse.
My point is that there must be a desired outcome prior to testing an outcome. Consider the following relation….
Singular Probability = Desired outcome/possible outcomes
Can you explain how this is relevant when the point under discussion is identifying the correct "desired outcome" to use ? (I also note that we have no basis for saying that there was a genuinely "desired outcome" prior to the actual event - of necessity we are identifying the outcomes of interest after the fact).
I cannot deny the context of the used quotation because I do not have the actual material to form an objection to its use. That doesn’t stop me from having reservations about the enormous number cited for alternate functional cytochrome C.
I don't see any valid reason to have reservations.
For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe
Why should this be a problem ? We are talking about the number of possible configurations, not actually realised configurations. A sequence of 1,000 bits has 10^300 possible combinations. Does that pose any difficulty to tossing a coin 1,000 times ?
it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang
And how is that relevant ?
. So I am pointing out that since the possible number of chemical reactions in the universe was exceeded by 45 orders of magnitude there could never be 2.3 x 10^93 configurations. I simply need to read the citation.
Obviously you don't even understand what the figure actually refers to. This objection is sheer nonsense.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 46 by zaius137, posted 10-15-2012 1:42 AM|| ||zaius137 has not yet responded|