Time and Chance......

tanstaafl72555

tanstaafl72555

This Member's Account Has Been Permanently Banned
Life Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
7,235
Location
Spring Hope NC
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
The mathematical odds of the cosmos in its present level of complexity coming together out of disorganized inanimate particles is, given the best computer models we have, about 1 in 10^119. That is 10 with 119 zeroes to the right of it. While this is a great mathematical increase over Murray Eden's original calcs, it is still pretty much of a guess.


Murray Eden was a MIT mathematician who used the original computers to plot NASA's space missions to figure the mathematical odds of this occurring. They called it WISTAR.
​
However we have to use the best models we can, so we do. Any honest model will be aware of the limitations and assumptions inherent in the model though. This model ASSUMES:
a) we know the present complexity of the universe. All you need to understand the silliness of this assumption is to compare the world of Newton and that of any quantum physicist. If you assume the Newtonian world of physics is all there is to know, you would be naive. It is likely we will discover deeper and more odd uncertainties as we delve deeper into study of the universe.

b) we have an explanation for where the disorganized inanimate came from in the first place. There are only two logical answers for this 1) they came from nothing. Nothing created something. this is a logical absurdity, but it is one of the possibilities. 2) they came from something. Then the question is: is that "something" personal or impersonal. If impersonal, this means our personalities are an absurdity. If personal, this pushes us into the realm of "religion" because our personalities are analogues to a personality bigger than ours.

This model assumes we came from the impersonal plus time and chance and disregards 2) altogether. I am, for the sake of the argument, going to make that assumption in the model.
​
If we actually run these calcs through the best quantum computers (you can't go down to Best Buy and buy one of these, they are restricted to high level academic and government functions), they STILL spit them out as non quantifiable. That is, they are mathematically impossible. Not just improbable.... IMPOSSIBLE. That is not me, some reactionary fundamentalist, saying that. It is saying that using the best empirical tools we have, and using the approximate age of the universe at 16 billion years (we arrive at this by looking at the rate of expansion of the universe measuring doppler shifts.... another problematic issue given what we have learned about the rate of the expansion of the universe! But again, we use the best models we can), we use the probabilities of items randomly coming together, arranging and rearranging themselves and assigning mathematical probabilities. Using the best empirical data, this is the number they come up with is... incalculable. That is, 16 billion years is nowhere NEAR enough time needed to come up with a universe in its present level of measured complexity. To give you an idea of the size of this number, the size of the observed universe is 93 billion light years in diameter, or 8.8 times 10^26 meters. That is, the dimensions of the entire observable universe is dwarfed by a factor of almost 10^100 for the numbers that OUR BEST SCIENCE says would be necessary for this all to have arisen "by chance."

So, the next time someone says they won't be taken in by a bunch of hocus pocus and instead believes in "science" you can know that person is simply being ignorant... either with or without data. If they truly believed in "science" then they would acknowledge that "science" .... or analysis of empirically obtained data, renders this model completely impossible.
​
That person does not "trust" in science. They trust in a model which defies science.......

Now where have I heard that accusation before? :)
 
Last edited:
And yet, no matter how improbable, it happens. It can be 1 in a million, but that millionth time happens at some point.

Infinite Monkey Theroem

Or even better, alter reality and perception itself... The Hundreth Monkey
 
georgel said:
And yet, no matter how improbable, it happens. It can be 1 in a million, but that millionth time happens at some point.

Infinite Monkey Theroem

Or even better, alter reality and perception itself... The Hundreth Monkey
Click to expand...

I thought it was the 10,000th monkey?!? Geez, I have to get out more.
 
You can’t explain it or model it, today. Not all that long ago, the device(s) you used to communicate that couldn’t be explained or modeled by math or science as they were understood then. To the guy who doesn’t understand quantum mechanics, the LED and laser are magic of the gods.
 
noway2 said:
You can’t explain it or model it, today. Not all that long ago, the device(s) you used to communicate that couldn’t be explained or modeled by math or science as they were understood then. To the guy who doesn’t understand quantum mechanics, the LED and laser are magic of the gods.
Click to expand...

You may find it odd for me to say that I believe this is a legit choice, speaking solely from stating what is a rational choice. There are other rational factors, and some supra rational, which make this not my choice, as you well know.

The post is not so much to "convince" anyone as it is to show the nature of the choice one is making, and -if I am honest- to sneer just a bit at the half educated empiricist who blubs on about "you have faith and I have fact." Your post (thank you for it!), simply states that one may have faith in another answer to resolve this, but both are faith. One is simply trusting in the mind and rationality of man, the other in supernatural revelation. I clearly believe in the latter, for other reasons I won't go into here.

I believe in the Christian God and His revelation in the Bible as the ONLY system which can give an adequate explanation of the cosmos as we see it, including man's personality. That assurance has only become stronger over the years as I have allowed skeptics to ask me the tougher questions (naturalism from time and chance is NOT one of those "tougher questions") and at times, staggered under them.

Nevertheless, I also know that men do not embrace or reject God's revelation on the basis of reason. By nature, they dislike it and WANT it to be false, and run to alt - explanations of life/origins with glee, often rushing past logical contradictions in their path. The mathematical impossibilities given our present field of knowledge of the cosmos REQUIRES we put our faith in something other than our present rational abilities. Some put that faith in our own FUTURE cognitive abilities. I was on a construction crew with a guy without a lot of academic background (I was just in HS myself, newly converted) and when I asked him, an atheist, how he accounted for many of the complexities of the world, he just said "science will figure something out." I have come to see that this answer may pick up layers of complexity and elegance, but it is the same thing recycled over and over.
 
Last edited:
georgel said:
And yet, no matter how improbable, it happens. It can be 1 in a million, but that millionth time happens at some point.

Infinite Monkey Theroem

Or even better, alter reality and perception itself... The Hundreth Monkey
Click to expand...
The problem with the infinite monkey theorem is that it is wholly theoretical, and I mean COMPLETELY. We have amazingly high speed computers capable of hashing huge amounts data and spitting out random combinations at speeds that would cause your jaw to drop....and so far we got nothing. I am not talking about the works of Shakespeare, I am simply talking about a few coherent sentences. It sound all well and good and people sagely nod and say "yes, stick an million billion monkeys in front of typewriters and one will eventually come up with Shakespeare" but it is bullshit. We already have a million billion monkeys pecking and we can't even come up with "A drum, a drum, Macbeth doth come" Order simply does not come from disorder. Increasing entropy and all that.
 
Last edited:
premise said:
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but why are so many of the threads you start here essentially arguments against hypothetical opponents that don't even really exist on this forum?
Click to expand...
I think he views us as much more of a like minded space than much of the rest of social media, and rants here amongst folks that might see his point.

That’s been my take anyway.
 
One of the main fallacies in all this chance/odds stuff is that the outcomes are not random but rather are built on what has worked before. These modelers seem to want to go from chaos to order in one step rather than lots of steps. That is silly to waste all that computer time doing such a thing. The 10,000 monkeys is even sillier.

The Wright brothers did not fly an F16 off that sand dune at Kitty Hawk. They did not even fly a P51 Mustang or a Piper Cub for that first flight.

edit: The people who bring entropy into the discussion of increasing complexity seem to be thinking that we live in a closed system. We do not. They seem to think that something simple can not be made to be complex. It can. It is quite simple. If entropy decreases in one place it increases in another.
 
Last edited:
But, computers aren't really random. They only appear to be. They still follow mathematical formulas and are limited by our ability to program them.

It's ALL theoretical anyway.

4821583-Robin-Williams-Quote-Reality-What-a-concept.jpg
 
premise said:
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but why are so many of the threads you start here essentially arguments against hypothetical opponents that don't even really exist on this forum?
Click to expand...

You, or likely others, have in fact run across this. Either that, or you have never been in a college dorm, or listened to engineers talk, or even read through this thread! lol It is in fact being advocated here, right now, at least theoretically.
 
Last edited:
Charlie said:
One of the main fallacies in all this chance/odds stuff is that the outcomes are not random but rather are built on what has worked before. These modelers seem to want to go from chaos to order in one step rather than lots of steps. That is silly to waste all that computer time doing such a thing. The 10,000 monkeys is even sillier.

The Wright brothers did not fly an F16 off that sand dune at Kitty Hawk. They did not even fly a P51 Mustang or a Piper Cub for that first flight.

edit: The people who bring entropy into the discussion of increasing complexity seem to be thinking that we live in a closed system. We do not. They seem to think that something simple can not be made to be complex. It can. It is quite simple. If entropy decreases in one place it increases in another.
Click to expand...

a material universe is by definition a closed system. by definition.

Further, I did not state that only that a HIGH LEVEL of complexity is unable to be coughed up by a random system. At present we have no evidence that complexity arises at all from randomness. Even Wohler's experiments were tightly structured and controlled.

Molecular biophysics is pretty clear that the physics of basic cell combination shows a "predisposal" to biopathways. You move down to the most elemental levels and you find Paley's watch again.
 
georgel said:
But, computers aren't really random. They only appear to be.
Click to expand...

sorry, I did not mean to imply computers themselves were random. What I was referring to was the explosion of cryptography and the generations of large fields of random characters. This certainly occurs. Just ask any ETH depositor on Kucoin! :)
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
a material universe is by definition a closed system. by definition..
Click to expand...

The earth is not. It gets energy and material from outside the earth.

edit: "... generations of large fields of random characters." How did it know how to generate those numbers unless it was told how to do so? Upon what knowledge or previous understanding was this generation based?
 
Last edited:
Charlie said:
These modelers seem to want to go from chaos to order in one step rather than lots of steps.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It sounds as if tan s is trying to argue that from primordial soup man arrived must prove intelligent design without factoring in the idea of bacteria giving way to the amoeba to ..... over millions of years.
 
noway2 said:
Exactly. It sounds as if tan s is trying to argue that from primordial soup man arrived must prove intelligent design without factoring in the idea of bacteria giving way to the amoeba to ..... over millions of years.
Click to expand...

I want to get some popcorn and a bottle of Famous Grouse whenever I read someone trying to prove or disprove theology with science or prove or disprove science with theology. It makes some interesting and sometimes quite humorous reading. It has been going on for a long time, and some of the dudes from days of old came up with some really cool stuff.
 
When you start looking at quantum physics, it starts to come together. (As opposed to entropy, where it's coming apart. :D) I read an interesting book by the Dali Lama that drew parallels between quantum physics and Buddhism. Turns out he's a bit of a science geek.

Basically, we're all living in a giant holodeck. It is what you believe it is. ;)
 
Last edited:
georgel said:
When you start looking at quantum physics, it starts to come together. (As opposed to entropy, where it's coming apart. :D) I read an interesting book by the Dali Lama that drew parallels between quantum physics and Buddhism. Turns out he's a bit of a science geek.

Basically, we're all living in a giant holodeck. It is what you believe it is. ;)
Click to expand...

So I gather that crime and the guns one would use to protect yourself, can be just "believed" away? Nice trick.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
Exactly. It sounds as if tan s is trying to argue that from primordial soup man arrived must prove intelligent design without factoring in the idea of bacteria giving way to the amoeba to ..... over millions of years.
Click to expand...
I am not, but I fail to see how bacteria giving way to amoeba alters this problem at all.
 
Charlie said:
I want to get some popcorn and a bottle of Famous Grouse whenever I read someone trying to prove or disprove theology with science or prove or disprove science with theology. It makes some interesting and sometimes quite humorous reading. It has been going on for a long time, and some of the dudes from days of old came up with some really cool stuff.
Click to expand...
This is not even what is being discussed, though. I am dropping several times that I have a theocentric view of the universe just for honesty's sake. This has nothing to do with "proving" the biblical worldview, as one need not be a Christian to reject a steady state view of a material universe as implausible.

What I AM positing is that when you start with an empirical worldview, and assert that everything is explained by mechanical/quantum processes, empirical methodology cuts a hole around this starting point and you fall thru the floor before you can get started good. The numbers don't add up.
 
Last edited:
Charlie said:
The earth is not. It gets energy and material from outside the earth.?
Click to expand...

Great. I will file that away for use the next time I hear someone arguing the earth is not a part of the milky way or solar system. Until then, that (open v closed system) answer is totally irrelevant. We are arguing the complexity of the cosmos itself, not a hairless biped on some small planet near the tail of a small galaxy.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
Great. I will file that away for use the next time I hear someone arguing the earth is not a part of the milky way or solar system. Until then, that (open v closed system) answer is totally irrelevant. We are arguing the complexity of the cosmos itself, not a hairless biped on some small planet near the tail of a small galaxy.
Click to expand...

You understanding of my post is obvious. The earth is certainly not a closed system. It is, indeed, part of the whole universe but is not a closed system if you look at it by itself as many people do. Your post suggested that you have that idea. Many systems on earth would run down if there was not an input of energy from the sun. By having an input from outside allows us to make the vast complexities we find on earth without violating any laws about entropy.

"Order simply does not come from disorder. Increasing entropy and all that." Greater order in one place definitely comes from increasing disorder somewhere else. Entropy in the whole system increases towards a maximum, but that can be accompanied by marvelous decreases in entropy within the system.
 
Charlie said:
Greater order in one place definitely comes from increasing disorder somewhere else. Entropy in the whole system increases towards a maximum, but that can be accompanied by marvelous decreases in entropy within the system.
Click to expand...

Great idea. It is a complete repudiation of the second law of thermodynamics, but laws are made to be broken :) .

I would be interested in where you got this idea. I have never heard of it before......

On second thought.... I am not even sure I understand what you are saying, but that is usually a defect in my mental abilities when it comes to issues like these. I have no idea what you are even saying, though.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever wondered how sugars and starches are made by plants? Probably not, but that is a wonderful example of an increase in order in one place being driven by a decrease in order somewhere else. The sunlight from the sun drives chemical reactions that produce wonderfully complex molecules from the rather simple carbon dioxide and water. Decreased entropy in the starch is possible by the increase in entropy in the sun. The total system, earth, sun, and the rest of the universe, experiences an overall increase in entropy while experiencing local magnificent pockets of decreased entropy.

You should have learned that my statement is not a repudiation of the law of thermodynamics in 8th grade Science class.

If entropy or disorder always increases to a maximum everywhere without any increase in complexity anywhere, how did you grow from a single cell and how did that very complex computer you mentioned come to exist?
 
Charlie said:
Have you ever wondered how sugars and starches are made by plants? Probably not, but that is a wonderful example of an increase in order in one place being driven by a decrease in order somewhere else. The sunlight from the sun drives chemical reactions that produce wonderfully complex molecules from the rather simple carbon dioxide and water. Decreased entropy in the starch is possible by the increase in entropy in the sun. The total system, earth, sun, and the rest of the universe, experiences an overall increase in entropy while experiencing local magnificent pockets of decreased entropy.

You should have learned that my statement is not a repudiation of the law of thermodynamics in 8th grade Science class.

If entropy or disorder always increases to a maximum everywhere without any increase in complexity anywhere, how did you grow from a single cell and how did that very complex computer you mentioned come to exist?
Click to expand...
Actually it is. Just as an internal combustiion engine is not a "repudiation" of the second law. I don't think you understand the second law. It is not that raw random energy somehow reverses entropy if you just throw more into the system. That logic says if we blow up a building with dynamite, we can create a subdivision with a nuke. More energy into the system.

We have precisely ZERO empirical evidence for that. It is true that DIRECTED energy can perform work. It is false that UNDIRECTED energy produces complexity (work). That is, energy is "harnessed" or directed by an intelligent designer who makes a machine (or an organism) which is able to harness that energy. No one I know of denies the latter.

Citing the ability of a plant to harness the sun's energy to create starches is begging the question here by simply pushing it back a step.
 
Last edited:
There you go with "random" again. That really seem to bother you. I never said increases in complexity were random. Indeed, quite the opposite. You evidently do not understand thermodynamics while at the same time admitting that an outside input can decrease entropy in something. If entropy always increases everywhere as you indicated, any decrease in entropy would not be possible, and complexity could never be increased at all ever by any means. We both know that complexity can and does increase.

"Actually it is." Actually what is?
 
Charlie said:
There you go with "random" again.
Click to expand...

Is there another category other than "random" or "ordered" which I missed?

This is the crux of the problem. There is either evidence for self ordering of raw energy or it is "random." You can't just wave a wand and say "the universe is ordered, deal with it" The reason why is ........... , well, the second law of thermo (lol). The "natural" state of things is disordered, random and unorganized. This means that without an external ORDERING force (not an external force, that is just silly), we simply will not have structure, order and complexity.

It is turtles all the way down. You can't just say "open system" and think that obviates the natural behavior of energy. I believe in an "open system" in which an external force organizes, orchestrates and direct energy AWAY from its natural state and into a structured state. Yet I believe in the second law. I have no idea at this point what your model for energy is. It SOUNDS like (I do not want to attribute to you what you have not said) you are claiming that the simple introduction of energy into a system means that the system may become more complex. If this is what you are saying, then it is, frankly, nonsense.

If not, then I am not sure what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
You are not a scientist are you?


edit: "The "natural" state of things is disordered, random and unorganized." That last hurricane seemed rather natural and very organized to me.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
The "natural" state of things is disordered, random and unorganized.
Click to expand...

Not true; everything is in reaction to a stimuli and there is a driving force to every action. While the initial action could have been "random" everything since has been part of chain since that moment of inception. If at any point something appears disordered, that is because the capacity of human perception of said events has been exceeded.
 
I am out of popcorn, the Famous Grouse bottle is about empty, and I have to pretend to be a responsible adult tomorrow. Later. It has been fun.
 
If you believe in the theoretical way that the universe was created, then wouldn't the theory of how planets formed demonstrate order from chaos?
 
premise said:
Not true; everything is in reaction to a stimuli and there is a driving force to every action. While the initial action could have been "random" everything since has been part of chain since that moment of inception. If at any point something appears disordered, that is because the capacity of human perception of said events has been exceeded.
Click to expand...
This answer amuses me. Here is someone claiming that the foundational element of knowledge is that things respond to stimuli in an ordered way and that all actions are a reaction to some force. (we call this "causality") Yet, science itself has no empirical method to prove causality. It has to ASSUME causality in order to prove it. This is called "circular reasoning" and is not scientific at all. You may not ASSUME something to prove it by the scientific method.
Now, if I were a real scientist who had done years of research in molecular biophysics with a degree in chemistry, with a background in math, physics and chemistry, instead of some stupid fundamentalist, I would understand this better, and might even assert that science rests on pure faith, and in fact rests on a faith assertion which CONTRADICTS the fundamental laws of energy, which include that energy does not spontaneoously go from a state of lower to higher organization. I would, if I were not an ignorant fundamentalist, see that claims that an "open system" subverts this are actually idiotic, since 1) the cosmos is a closed system, by definition (at least in the model we are considering) and 2) introducing non structured energy into an open system only causes randomness to increase faster. That is, if I were smart enough to see that the "open system" argument (which is very old) is bullshit and not very well thought through. It is like saying the answer to the destruction by unchanneled explosive force is to give it MORE force and hope things magically arrange themselves. That is what I would think if I understood the second law of thermo, had any academic training and wasn't in need of some supercilious twit who either does not understand the nature of this objection or deliberately ignores it.

A final note, pointing to ordered systems within the cosmos and ASSUMING these happened spontaneously and thus prove order arises without design is a really really really stupid argument. The person may be a freaking Neils Bohr who is making it, and is doubtless far above my level of academic prowess, but even as stupid as I am, I can see that ole Neils just made a colossally dumbass argument. (actually Neils never made such an idiotic assertion and was clear that intro of unstructured energy into a system leads to more and faster chaos).

The last refuge of a person who is married to an idea is to question your credentials, rather than the argument itself.

To recap:
1) you can't invoke causality in an attempt to argue for a spontaneously ordered universe. This is a classic example of begging the question.
2) you can't invoke an "open system" response and claim that injections of new unorganized (organized energy needs an organizer. see.... uhhhhh the second law of thermo) energy will do what current levels will not.
3) challenging credentials is the last refuge of someone whose ego will not let them admit they either don't understand the argument or have no answer.

Toodles.

Tans
 
Last edited:
cold1 said:
If you believe in the theoretical way that the universe was created, then wouldn't the theory of how planets formed demonstrate order from chaos?
Click to expand...
as much as eating 2 magnets at different times and having them pinch your intenstines together does. Your gut wasn't purposely trying to put them together, but due to the properties of all things involved, once in a while the magnets come close enough to attract eachother. And if you've been eating other items that they can attract... Ever watch somebody harvest elemental iron from breakfast cereal? Or noticed that due to chance air currents, little specs of dust somehow manage to form large wads of dust bunnies? would you call that order from chaos? Sometimes, things just clump together because reasons.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
as much as eating 2 magnets at different times and having them pinch your intenstines together does. Your gut wasn't purposely trying to put them together, but due to the properties of all things involved, once in a while the magnets come close enough to attract eachother. And if you've been eating other items that they can attract... Ever watch somebody harvest elemental iron from breakfast cereal? Or noticed that due to chance air currents, little specs of dust somehow manage to form large wads of dust bunnies? would you call that order from chaos? Sometimes, things just clump together because reasons.
Click to expand...
Frying a taco sometimes gives an image of St. Whoever his name was on the burn marks, and I can see the Spartans arming themselves against the Persians in the clould formations! Not sure how this is relevant, but it used to make for hours of diversionary cogitation while I fried my brain on LSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom