Her Fluxive Eyes

A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation based on 26 letters plus a space suggests it'll take roughly 27 to the 39th power tries (39th power for the 39 slots in the sentence) before a perfect hit occurs. At 100 tries a second, this would take more than a billion billion billion billion billion years!

-"Strange but True" Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

According to Wikipedia, about 13.75 billion years - since the big bang. Nothing is known about whether it, or anything else existed prior to the big bang.
But how is that related to the rest of your post?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

Did you assume just one computer doing the job?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

I assume you're leading up to the argument that since the probability of *this* universe was so unlikely then it had to be created by God.

Here's one, make yourself a cup of coffee, throw it against your wall and tell me the odds of the resulting splodge on your wall being that specific collection of shapes (down to every last molecule). When you conclude unfeasibly unlikely please then conclude that God painted the wall like that for you. :]

Arguably the quote itself could be held in spiritual contexts, but I do not see why this thread isn't in the science forum.
One interesting thing about the experiment, someone directly aware and responsive isn't writing this sentence, so why do the odds of it appearing from random sequencing matter about anything?

Originally posted by ua41
One interesting thing about the experiment,....

The experiment itself is not interesting at all. All it does is confirm probability theory - which is no great achievement. What it attempts to do is convince the reader of the reality of probability theory - in other words it is targeted at non-mathematicians.
In addition, in every similar example I have seen in the past, there has been an attempt to draw some sort of parallel to the theory of evolution with the hope of shedding doubt on it, but as Freaky has a habit of never giving away his true purpose when starting threads I doubt we will know if this is the case here for at least the first 10 pages.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

100 tries a second? LOL! Even a ZX Spectrum could probably do better than that.

Originally posted by Palynka
100 tries a second? LOL! Even a ZX Spectrum could probably do better than that.

The quote is probably that old.

Originally posted by ua41
Arguably the quote itself could be held in spiritual contexts, but I do not see why this thread isn't in the science forum.

Only because this is not science.

Some belives that an article with more than three numbers in it is in fact scientific. Not so.

The example of the original poster is of course about religion. I.e. not science.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

I'm afraid to even ask. With respect to spirituality, you think all this demonstrates...what exactly?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Did you assume just one computer doing the job?

Make it 13.75 billion computers and re-do the math. See what it yields. Just keep in mind the computer is programmed and full of information.

Originally posted by Agerg
I assume you're leading up to the argument that since the probability of *this* universe was so unlikely then it had to be created by God.

Here's one, make yourself a cup of coffee, throw it against your wall and tell me the odds of the resulting splodge on your wall being that specific collection of shapes (down to every last molecule). When you conclude unfeasibly unlikely please then conclude that God painted the wall like that for you. :]

I assume you're leading up to the argument that since the probability of *this* universe was so unlikely then it had to be created by God.
Right now, we're just simply showing the overwhelming and profound unlikeliness that chance or randomness had anything to do with anything significant.

... tell me the odds of the resulting splodge on your wall being that specific collection of shapes (down to every last molecule).
That random non-specific non-shape?

I eagerly wait for the proof that the creating god is the same as the christian god.

Originally posted by Palynka
100 tries a second? LOL! Even a ZX Spectrum could probably do better than that.

Have you read 'Pattern Recognition'? It's the only William Gibson I've truly, deeply enjoyed. Anyway, there's a Pole in it who runs around collect ZX81s. Flight Simulator! Tilt ...

Originally posted by twhitehead
The experiment itself is not interesting at all. All it does is confirm probability theory - which is no great achievement. What it attempts to do is convince the reader of the reality of probability theory - in other words it is targeted at non-mathematicians.
In addition, in every similar example I have seen in the past, there has been an attempt to dr ...[text shortened]... starting threads I doubt we will know if this is the case here for at least the first 10 pages.

The experiment itself is not interesting at all.
Not to someone who doesn't want to consider it without prejudice. For that person, it's merely another quirksome inconsistency to be ignored and/or rejected.

What it attempts to do is convince the reader of the reality of probability theory - in other words it is targeted at non-mathematicians.
I highly doubt the person who did the experiment had anything in mind other than fleshing out the thought experiments previously offered by others. 'What does it make you think?' is the real question.

... there has been an attempt to draw some sort of parallel to the theory of evolution with the hope of shedding doubt on it...
You flatter me. I can hardly shed doubt on something as bankrupt as this boondoggle known as the theory of evolution; it does a fine job all by itself when viewed with common sense.

Freaky has a habit of never giving away his true purpose when starting threads I doubt we will know if this is the case here for at least the first 10 pages.
I suppose I should have a disclaimer at the beginning of every one of the threads I initiate:
"Dear Gentle Reader,
I am a Bible-believing Christian who's singular mission within this forum is to convince as many people as possible to substitute their work for the work done on their behalf on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ. Doing so will place them in a state of eternal bliss/joy/wonderment; whereas rejection of this exchange will keep them where they are currently, only magnified to horrible dimensions: separated forever from the everlasting Creator.
Literally every one of my pokes and prods will be toward this endeavor, so please be advised: you can trust that this drive to see you in heaven is in the forefront of all my conversations with you.
Love,
Freaky"

I dunno. Just seems kind of self-serving to have to start them all off like that. But, then again, I'm game!