infinite monkey theorem

[pshun2404]

Ok, I'm outta here.


---------------------------------------------------------------

What things are these?

Please specify.

Now now...don't take your ball and bat and go home....I answered your questions (sorry for the delay we had a week of death) now tell me what things are what? And if you cannot produce evidence equal or adequate to oppose the inference (which you insisted is legitimate) of the probabilities then just admit it....it is okay and does not have to change your own OPINION...

So far the one I have expressed is supported by the evidence...but I am open...

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Sorry for not being clear.

I was asking what 'things' you think can be inferred and deduced about the object Sagittarius A*..?

You wrote that 'some things' could be.

What are these 'things'..?

Please specify.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Now now...don't take your ball and bat and go home....I answered your questions (sorry for the delay we had a week of death) now tell me what things are what? And if you cannot produce evidence equal or adequate to oppose the inference (which you insisted is legitimate) of the probabilities then just admit it....it is okay and does not have to change your own OPINION...

So far the one I have expressed is supported by the evidence...but I am open...

Sorry 'bout that, P.

I was thinking of quitting the thread, thought better of it and forgot to delete my 'outta here' message.

Please ignore it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Knowledge and understanding of what?

The knowledge and understanding that fills up all the books at all the universities. Yet the Bible tells the story in only 31 verses in Genesis. Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God isn't a monkey. Look into a mirror to see one of those.

Do you know the difference between a man and a monkey? Those who do not know, the Bible tells us they will perish with the monkeys. "But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish." 2 pet 2 12

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry 'bout that, P.

I was thinking of quitting the thread, thought better of it and forgot to delete my 'outta here' message.

Please ignore it.

Good! I'm proud of you....I get this too frequently from people when they cannot support their conjecture...the "some things" are the things your article inferred was implied...now all of them may or may not prove to be correct (and in time we will learn more specifically which is which).

 

[joshua 1 9]

HEADLINE : 8.8 BILLION HABITABLE EARTH SIZE PLANETS EXIST IN THE MILKY WAY ALONE

According to Schroeder there are only 10,000 of those planets that are habitable for many different reasons as I already listed. The sun has to be the same size as our sun, the earth has to be the same size and the same distance. There has to be a moon the size of our moon and the planet has to be as rich in minerals as earth. The bottom line is that the Earth is very unique and there is very little chance you will find life the same as we find it here on the earth. Not impossible but unlikely. Even if you take just one of the many factors into consideration. Their age would need to be identical to us. Otherwise they would be more primitive or more advanced in their evolution. Also people like Stephen Jay Gould claimed that if you were to start all over here on the Earth you would end up with life that is totally different from what we see today. Not everyone agrees but that was his opinion at the time. Some people believe that all the elements are the same and the laws that regulate those elements are the same so life anywhere would end up the same as here on earth. But not all of those 8.8 Billion so called habitable earths have all the elements that we have here on the earth. Also the 10,000 habitable planets would be spread out through the entire universe not just here in our galaxy. Although very few of the galaxys can support life as we find it here on Earth because they are not even spiral galaxies. Perhaps they are failed attempts

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Good! I'm proud of you....I get this too frequently from people when they cannot support their conjecture...the "some things" are the things your article inferred was implied...now all of them may or may not prove to be correct (and in time we will learn more specifically which is which).

Nothing about Sagittarius A* can be proven, P.

It's estimated to be 26,000 light years away - so we are seeing it as it was 26,000 years ago.

All we can do is make logical inferences and deductions about what it might be.

Are these deductions and inferences 'things' you can accept as the best explanation of what it is?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

According to Schroeder there are only 10,000 of those planets that are habitable for many different reasons as I already listed. The sun has to be the same size as our sun, the earth has to be the same size and the same distance. There has to be a moon the size of our moon and the planet has to be as rich in minerals as earth. The bottom line is that the Earth is very unique and there is very little chance you will find life the same as we find it here on the earth. Not impossible but unlikely. Even if you take just one of the many factors into consideration. Their age would need to be identical to us. Otherwise they would be more primitive or more advanced in their evolution. Also people like Stephen Jay Gould claimed that if you were to start all over here on the Earth you would end up with life that is totally different from what we see today. Not everyone agrees but that was his opinion at the time. Some people believe that all the elements are the same and the laws that regulate those elements are the same so life anywhere would end up the same as here on earth. But not all of those 8.8 Billion so called habitable earths have all the elements that we have here on the earth. Also the 10,000 habitable planets would be spread out through the entire universe not just here in our galaxy. Although very few of the galaxys can support life as we find it here on Earth because they are not even spiral galaxies. Perhaps they are failed attempts

But have you asked yourself the question why our two sources of information differ so much?

I'd certainly like to know why you find mine unacceptable.

 

[Freodin]

The knowledge and understanding that fills up all the books at all the universities. Yet the Bible tells the story in only 31 verses in Genesis. Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." (H.L. Mencken)

But that is a little beside my point, beside my question. You claimed that the universe was the product of knowledge and understanding.

What we read in books is what we found out about how the universe works. (Which is a little different from what the Bible tells. )

So you claim that the universe is a product of knowledge and understanding about how the universe works.


How can you have knowlegde and understanding about how the universe works, when there isn't a universe (yet)?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How can you have knowlegde and understanding about how the universe works, when there isn't a universe (yet)?

The same way you have natural laws that create the universe. For example how are elements formed. This is regulated by laws that have to exist in order for elements to be formed. God made elements so you can understand them and He made you so that you are able to understand how elements are made. When you understand the creation then you can understand the Creator. So through the Bible we can know God and though Science we can know God. In the same way where do all the many proteins come from? How are they created. Do they have some sort of a function along the way or do they have to be fully formed before they are of any use.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But have you asked yourself the question why our two sources of information differ so much?

I'd certainly like to know why you find mine unacceptable.

For one thing I can not find the artical. The link does not say the opinion came from NASA as you say. The link says they were working with data from NASA and they came up with the conclusions that they arrived at. Conclusions that contradicts Schroeder and his findings as a Phd from MIT. Again I do not even question that there are that many planets, just that they are habitable planets. There could be life on Mars as far as anyone knows. It could just be in a realm that we are not able to detect. Some people believe that there are angels here on Earth living in a realm that we are not able to detect most of the time. Schroeder only talks about the chance of life on another planet being anything at all like life that we have here on earth. Anyways, I already answered the question, so there is no reason going over it again.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html

 

[Freodin]

The same way you have natural laws that create the universe. For example how are elements formed. This is regulated by laws that have to exist in order for elements to be formed. God made elements so you can understand them and He made you so that you are able to understand how elements are made. When you understand the creation then you can understand the Creator. So through the Bible we can know God and though Science we can know God. In the same way where do all the many proteins come from? How are they created. Do they have some sort of a function along the way or do they have to be fully formed before they are of any use.

It seems you simply do not understand my question... but don't worry: there are many people like you who simple do not understand the problem with their reasoning.

If God created the elements... how does he know and understand all the alws that have to exist in order for elements to be formed?

 

[ecco]

First off ...thirdly just because one or even ten people give their opinion, professor Schroeder OBVIOUSLY does NOT lack knowledge in his field (Ph.D) nor does he have a disregard for science. Those are opinionated assumptions.

From Mark Perakh's critique of Shroeder's books.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#estimates

However, I am qualified to argue against Schroeder's errors when he endeavors to discuss physics. Given the sad fact that he was awarded a PhD degree in physics by a prestigious institution, the elementary errors in Schroeder's discourse are simply stunning.

Unfortunately for Schroeder, he obviously did not know that E in equation (2) and E in equation (3), while both denoting the energy of a particle, actually denote two different energies.

Schroeder could have easily realized the senselessness of his equation (1) if he thought for a minute what are the values of the quantities in that equation.​

The above are snippets from just one of many critiques of the "science" used by Schroeder. I clipped them to conserve space, but if anyone doubts the content I provided a link to the full article.

Perhaps he does not lack knowledge in his field. Perhaps he is bending science to conform to his beliefs. I believe the latter. In this regard Schroeder is like Dembski and Behe.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

For one thing I can not find the artical. The link does not say the opinion came from NASA as you say. The link says they were working with data from NASA and they came up with the conclusions that they arrived at. Conclusions that contradicts Schroeder and his findings as a Phd from MIT. Again I do not even question that there are that many planets, just that they are habitable planets. There could be life on Mars as far as anyone knows. It could just be in a realm that we are not able to detect. Some people believe that there are angels here on Earth living in a realm that we are not able to detect most of the time. Schroeder only talks about the chance of life on another planet being anything at all like life that we have here on earth. Anyways, I already answered the question, so there is no reason going over it again.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both of the links I gave are working fine, Joshua.

And the information I wrote about my sources is accurate.
The NBC article quotes Geoff Marcy, the astronomer who used the NASA data (supplied by Bill Borucki, the head of the team running the Kepler exoplanet probe) to arrive at the figure of 8.8 billion Earth size planets in the Milky Way galaxy. The paper itself (co-authored by Marcy, Erik Petigura and Andrew Howard) comes up on my screen as a .pdf file, running to eight pages. The section entitled, 'Earth-size planets in the Habitable Zone' ends with the sentence, "Thus, Earth-size planets appear to be common in the HZs of a range of stellar types."

It's all there for you to read and digest.
But since you seem to regard Schroeder's work as negating the value of Marcy's and since you consider that you've answered my question and since we do not agree on what constitutes science, I think it best if we discontinue our dialog.

Thanks and goodbye,

E.I.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But since you seem to regard Schroeder's work as negating the value of Marcy's and since you consider that you've answered my question and since we do not agree on what constitutes science, I think it best if we discontinue our dialog.

That is fine because the discussion is between Marcy and Schroeder. It looks like Marcy is from University of California at Berkeley. A liberal but still highly respected University. So I am surprised that MIT comes up with totally different conclusions using the exact same data. Still most of my life they have said they assume there are other planets but can not prove it. So all of this is new information that they are still processing and working out some degree of agreement concerning just what the chance is that there is another planet like the Earth. But clearly Schroeder is using more then just the information from NASA that Marcy seems to be using.

Still you are only considering one factor: the Habitable zone and Schroeder is considering at least 18 different characteristics that make our solar system unique and different from all the other solar systems in the Habitable zone that Marcy is talking about. Still it is significant that they feel there is a habitable zone even if that is only part of the story. Because it would take a lot more then just what Berkeley is looking at to duplicate life here on Earth.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html

 

[EverettInterpretation]

That is fine because the discussion is between Marcy and Schroeder. It looks like Marcy is from University of California at Berkeley. A liberal but still highly respected University. So I am surprised that MIT comes up with totally different conclusions using the exact same data. Still most of my life they have said they assume there are other planets but can not prove it. So all of this is new information that they are still processing and working out some degree of agreement concerning just what the chance is that there is another planet like the Earth. But clearly Schroeder is using more then just the information from NASA that Marcy seems to be using.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Stephen_Hawking__God.html

I know I said that this dialog was over Joshua, but you are making the same error as pshun2404 about what can be proven.

Nothing can be proven about even the closest exoplanets.

We see them as they were decades, centuries or thousands of years in the past.

Nothing Schroeder says about any exoplanets can be proven either - for the same reasons.

All we can do is weigh up the available data and draw the best possible conclusion/s from it.

But if going exclusively with Schroeder's conclusions is what you've chosen to do, that's your choice.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[joshua 1 9]

From Mark Perakh's critique of Shroeder's books.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#estimates

However, I am qualified to argue against Schroeder's errors when he endeavors to discuss physics. Given the sad fact that he was awarded a PhD degree in physics by a prestigious institution, the elementary errors in Schroeder's discourse are simply stunning.

Unfortunately for Schroeder, he obviously did not know that E in equation (2) and E in equation (3), while both denoting the energy of a particle, actually denote two different energies.

Schroeder could have easily realized the senselessness of his equation (1) if he thought for a minute what are the values of the quantities in that equation.​

The above are snippets from just one of many critiques of the "science" used by Schroeder. I clipped them to conserve space, but if anyone doubts the content I provided a link to the full article.

Perhaps he does not lack knowledge in his field. Perhaps he is bending science to conform to his beliefs. I believe the latter. In this regard Schroeder is like Dembski and Behe.

None of this pertains to his current book. This is a review of his previous books before the current one came out. We expect as Christians that the atheists are going to attack and talk origin is not a reputable source outside of atheist circles. It is a act of desperation to have to turn to this web site rather than something more reputable in the scientific community.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nothing can be proven about even the closest exoplanets.

We are not offering proof only the odds. There seems to be a huge gap between Berkeley and MIT on this issue and I think the two institutes need to clean up their act and work out some sort of agreement between them. Yes Schroeder is offering a complexity of design as a type of irreplaceable complexity argument for God. Up until now no one has argued against the complexity of creation. If that were the case then there would be no need for infinity. Because a simple system would be easy to replicate. So complexity does not in and of itself prove there is a God only that the chance of design becomes a lot more likely in a complex system compared to a more simple system that ignores all the complexities of life.

The problem is to understand complexity and how difficult it would be for a random process to create something so complex would take quite a bit of understanding and knowledge of the system we are talking about. In this case we are talking about our entire solar system and the chance that there could be another solar system somewhere that is anything at all like ours. If you want to cast your vote for Marcy that is fine. I think Schroeder has a better grasp of all the variables that we need to take into consideration before we arrive at a conclusion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nothing Schroeder says about any exoplanets can be proven either - for the same reasons.

I do not think the various variables are being questioned by anyone. I have not heard you object to any of the different items he talks about that he feels makes the Earth so rare and unique in the Universe. There are going to be well qualified people on both sides of this issue. Some feel the Earth is not so unique and others that feel the earth is very special and unlike any other planet.