infinite monkey theorem

[sfs]

Atheists seem to put a lot of energy into being anti God. If you love or if you hate they both take a commitment of energy. It is the Agnostic that has invested nothing.

Your answer has nothing to do with my question. Why did you say that talkorigins was anti-God?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The theory is that there would have to be a infinite number of universes.

What theory would that be?

And my point remains: even if there are an infinite amount of universes... how would you know? You live in this universe and have no access to any of those other universes.

The question is what do we do with all the infinite number of failed universes that are not able to support life?

First of all, assuming here for a moment that there are indeed an infinite number of universes, what exactly makes you call the infinite (minus this one universe) number of universes to be "failed" ones?

Are all the others "failed" just because you happen to exist in this one?
What standards are you using to label all those universes (an infinite number of them, even) "failed"?

Even if you shrank the entire Universe down to the size of a mustard seed then were would you put an infinite number of mustard seeds.

"where" is a place in space. Space is an integral part of a space-time continuum. A universe.

When you step "outside" of a space-time continuum, the word "where" (as well as the word "when" for that matter), becomes a meaningless word.

 

[ecco]

.

 

[ecco]

It is to bad that YOU are not able to critique Schroeder that you just have to parrot someone else in their attempt to critique. In general you should NOT copy others in that you will copy their errors and add your own error to that.

If I were to attempt to critique Schroeder's math, you would proclaim that I am not qualified since I do not have degrees in math or physics.
When I read critiques of Schroeder's work, make the effort to understand the critique and post relevant portions of that critique - with proper attribution, you criticize me for parroting.

Paraphrasing John 8:6: Let he who is without cast the first stone.

In the OP you stated:
“The chance of this happening is one in 10:500”
Did you calculate that probability? No, you didn't. You cut and pasted it, without attribution.

In post 15 you copied/pasted from apstatsmonkey.com/StatsMonkey/TPS3e_files/TypingMonkeys.pdf or a similar site without attribution/

You also posted a 5 minute video done by Schroeder.

In post 44 you stated "I let Dr Gerald Schroeder do the math."

Would you care to lecture me some more about non-originality and copying?

 

[EverettInterpretation]

The conversation was more between Hawking and Schroeder. For me there is a lot of talk in Genesis about the firmament or what we call the atmosphere. I just saw some photos taken from a weather balloon and the earth's atmosphere is very thin. So I do not know how much can be accomplished with the atmosphere and how much we need to duplicate the conditions we find here on earth. Even here on earth we seem to have a very narrow window of opportunity. When we do our gardening the conditions we need to provide for plants to prosper can be somewhat narrow. Weeds do real good all by themselves but a beautiful cultivated plant requires a lot more care then a weed. Schroeder attempts to address the issue of why the ground is cursed so that we have to fight with the weeds to cultivate our food. Very few people go into that dept in their study of the Bible. I have lots of books and I would consider most of them to be a waste of time. But I do believe that Schroeder has something to add to the conversation. Even if people are able to pick on what he says that is just a part of the process. That is what peer review process is all about. As they say you raise the flag and wait to see if they salute it or shoot it.

Joshua,

It doesn't matter who's involved in using the statistics.

It's how they're being used (or rather, misused) that was my point.
By using only the Earth to generate the list of criteria for what other life-friendly planets must be like, you end up confirming that only duplicates of the Earth can be life-friendly. Which means that you end up confirming what you already know. You've filtered out all other possibilities by accepting only Earth-duplicates as viable locations for alien life. That's not investigating or discovering anything. That's confirming what we already know. Apart from confirming the anti-Copernican view that the Earth is special, favored and privileged, this exercise accomplishes nothing.

What should be done is to ask the question, "What range of conditions will permit life to arise on other planets?"
If the answer is, "We don't currently know, because we only have one example (the Earth) to guide us", then the next logical step is to broaden the range of search criteria, not narrow them down. You start your search using a b-r-o-a-d set of criteria and then you narrow it down, eliminating as you go. You don't start with a very narrow set of criteria, because that runs the risk of eliminating potentially life-friendly planets that are somewhat similar to Earth, but not exact duplicates of it.

Do you see the logic of this, Joshua?

There's another basic problem with assuming that the Earth is somehow special.
That assumption runs counter to the Copernican Principle, which underpins modern cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy. If you begin with the anti-Copernican assumption that the Earth is special, then you can be sure that you are making a flawed and unworkable analysis, no matter how rigorous your data is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

I recommend that you carefully check Schroeder's work to see if he factors the CP into it, Joshua.
If he does, fine. If you don't know or can't tell if he does, then it'd be a mistake to assume that he does. You really need to find this out. You shouldn't just take it for granted that because he's highly respected, highly qualified and is based at MIT, he's therefore abiding by the rules of science. I say that because this scientist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

...doesn't abide by the rules and consistently disregards the CP.
Not using that principle allows him to promote the value of the Fine-Tuned universe argument as evidence for the existence of the Christian God - when the CP specifically disallows that kind of claim.

Please check Schroeder out with regard to his use or avoidance of the Copernican Principle.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Ah...er...deductions about what might have been would be more correct, and yes I can accept them as one possibility of what might have been 26,000 years ago...but as for the best explanation? Well I suppose it is the best we can do in light of this degree of retrospect...in other words it is the best we can conjecture from this vantage point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok then, pshun...

If a scientist makes a prediction about something as-yet-undiscovered or undetected, a prediction based upon a best fit of the available data, and this prediction is later confirmed, would you accept that the best fit used to make that prediction is an accurate description of what is actually out there?

That this isn't just a possibility, but must actually be the reality?

Or putting it another way...
How can a prediction be confirmed by observation if the understanding behind that prediction isn't accurate?

Btw, I can cite examples of astronomical/cosmological confirmed predictions if you want to see them.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[sfs]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok then, pshun...

If a scientist makes a prediction about something as-yet-undiscovered or undetected, a prediction based upon a best fit of the available data, and this prediction is later confirmed, would you accept that the best fit used to make that prediction is an accurate description of what is actually out there?

That this isn't just a possibility, but must actually be the reality?

Or putting it another way...
How can a prediction be confirmed by observation if the understanding behind that prediction isn't accurate?

Btw, I can cite examples of astronomical/cosmological confirmed predictions if you want to see them.

I don't know about pshun, but I certainly don't accept that. An accurate prediction increases confidence in a model, but by no means guarantees that the model is correct.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Still assuming that random processes are driven by intentions and purposes?

Random makes no attempts at anything.

But, to humour you, let´s assume for a moment there were an entity who tried to create a universe and had made a lot of failed attempts before succeeding. What would such a failed attempt look like? Where would you expect to find it?

Well, Mars looks like a failed earth, and its right over there . . .

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of my entire post, you only responded, cryptically, to the first line. Please respond to:
I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.

The entire post (for the third time)...

Common christian belief is that "God is Eternal"
Common christian belief is that "God created the universe between 6000 years ago and 13+ billion years ago"

For the sake of discussion let's use the max...13+ Billion.
For the sake of discussion let's say that Eternity = Infinity.

For ease of discussion let's represent:
EternityInfinity as EI
Maximum age of our Universe as AU

Therefore, God created the (known) universe no more than AU years ago.

Apparently God did other things or no things for EI - AU (EI minus AU) years.

That's a verrrrrrrry long time. Almost as long as Eternity.

I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.​

For creationists it all comes down to a question of free will. In order to have free will then we need to be able to make wrong choices. That of course is going to create problems. What are the results or consequences of making the wrong choices. We are told that is the situation we have here on Earth. So the only failure is on our part in that we used our God given ability to choose & make the wrong choice. God Himself does not make mistakes. As they say there will be no erasers in Heaven because there will be no mistakes there. Now people that made the wrong choice are given time to repent. If at the end of the time they are given they have not repented then they will be destroyed. Anything that does not meet with God's approval will be annihilated and it will be as if it never existed. That is the difference between what is temporal and what is eternal. So it is God who will determine what is good and what is not good. Adam and Eve made the choice to know good and evil. They made the choice to be aware of what did not please God. For me they made the wrong choice but now we have to deal with the consequence of what they did.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, Mars looks like a failed earth, and its right over there . . .

We are told that all of creation is in a fallen state and that all of creation will be restored. So then Mars will be restored and there will once again be life on Mars.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

There are two theory's, one is the universe is very standard and wherever you go everything is the same. Then you have people like Harvard's Gould that says everything is chance and if you were to start all over again at the beginning then everything would be totally different. Schroeder says the laws are all uniform but the conditions are very unique here on earth. For example is is rare to have a earth with as many of the elements that we have here on our planet. It would appear that others do not agree with him and they seem to believe that the conditions do not have to be as exact as they are to the earth to duplicate the life that you find here on Earth.

I'm not sure these are theories. What evidence are they based on? They sound like wild conjectures to me.

We have no reason to believe that the Earth is unique. We know that there are other solar systems that appear to have rocky planets in the habitable zone. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the Earth is unique (something can't be 'very unique', it either is or it isn't).

We don't have evidence to say that the laws of physics would be different if the big bang were to start again. So, discussion concerning that is conjecture, not a theory. A theory needs evidence to support it.

It is an interesting discussion, but I'm concerned that it's getting a bit close to just making stuff up.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

I don't know about pshun, but I certainly don't accept that. An accurate prediction increases confidence in a model, but by no means guarantees that the model is correct.

Good point sfs!

I'll revise the wording.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok then, pshun...

If a scientist makes a prediction about something as-yet-undiscovered or undetected, a prediction based upon a best fit of the available data, and this prediction is later confirmed, would you have confidence in the best fit that was used to make the prediction?

Btw, I can cite examples of astronomical/cosmological confirmed predictions if you want to see them.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[quatona]

I got tired of waiting for someone to come along and explain that evolution is NOT a random process that Natural Selection is very oriented to making a selection. Or whatever it is they believe. There is no need for me to try to represent evolutionists and from what I see they seem to be poorly represented on this board.

So this thread is about evolution? Then the OP was misleading.

 

[quatona]

Well, Mars looks like a failed earth, and its right over there . . .

The entire universe is full of stars that look like failed attempts to produce a planet with life on it...

 

[sfs]

Good point sfs!

I'll revise the wording.

What kind of reply is that? You're supposed to malign my intellect, insinuate ugly things about my motives, and refuse ever to acknowledge error, all while sidestepping the issue at hand. It's like you're not even trying to fit in here.

 

[Belk]

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The chance of this happening is one in 10:500. So there would be 500 zeros. If this were the case then there would be many many many failed attempts. What happened to all the failed attempts at making a universe? Are they in the failed attempt bucket in the sky somewhere? The universe is filled with natural laws that makes it all work and nothing seems to be a failed attempt, at least on that level. Nothing failed until self awareness came along. Then people began to question if there is a God then how could he make such a mess. Even though they do not believe in God they feel this God that they do not believe in made a mess out of the universe that He created. But the same people feel that random process is doing a fine job of creation and does not make a mess at all or if it does it cleans up after itself. Still with so many failed attempts then the mess to clean up must be huge.

Blind response

I think you mean 10 to the 500th power. 10:500 means a 1 in 50 chance.

As to where those failed attempts would be I have no clue. there could be multiple universes or just one that keeps repeating until something falls into place. No way to tell.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

What kind of reply is that? You're supposed to malign my intellect, insinuate ugly things about my motives, and refuse ever to acknowledge error, all while sidestepping the issue at hand. It's like you're not even trying to fit in here.

I got that, sfs! (chuckles)

What kind of reply was that?
One from a fallible person who's happy to be corrected if wrong, pleased to be shown better ways of doing things and keen to learn from any constructive criticism that comes my way.

Ummm...did I get that wrong?

 

[ecco]

ecco:I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.

For creationists it all comes down to a question of free will. In order to have free will then we need to be able to make wrong choices. That of course is going to create problems. What are the results or consequences of making the wrong choices. We are told that is the situation we have here on Earth. So the only failure is on our part in that we used our God given ability to choose & make the wrong choice.
God Himself does not make mistakes. As they say there will be no erasers in Heaven because there will be no mistakes there. Now people that made the wrong choice are given time to repent. If at the end of the time they are given they have not repented then they will be destroyed. Anything that does not meet with God's approval will be annihilated and it will be as if it never existed. That is the difference between what is temporal and what is eternal. So it is God who will determine what is good and what is not good. Adam and Eve made the choice to know good and evil. They made the choice to be aware of what did not please God. For me they made the wrong choice but now we have to deal with the consequence of what they did.

With the possible exception of: "God Himself does not make mistakes." ... all the above has nothing to do with: I'll leave it to you to decide if god just did nothing or if god made other universes, failed, successful or otherwise.

So, if your answer is that god made no failed universes, that still leaves:
A. God made other good universes.
-or-
B. God did nothing for 99.999999999+% of his eternal existence.

I await your response.

 

[joshua 1 9]

B. God did nothing for 99.999999999+% of his eternal existence.

There is no number that you can assign to what is eternal. Outside of the Mulitverse theory I don't give much thoughts to other universes. Somewhere along the way we have to figure out if there is a purpose and a plan to the known universe. Other than reproduction, yet not all species reproduce they simply clone themselves and go on forever. Or until the conditions of the environment are no longer optimal to sustain their life form.