Her Fluxive Eyes

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your initial post shows nothing of the sort. I suspect your confusion is caused by your understanding of what 'significant' means. Perhaps you would like to elaborate what you mean by 'significant' and how significant things differ from insignificant things, and why they are more improbable.

I suspect your confusion is caused by your understanding of what 'significant' means. Perhaps you would like to elaborate what you mean by 'significant' and how significant things differ from insignificant things, and why they are more improbable.
I consider your suspicions to be suspect and leading to all manner of confusion on your part. Really? Is this how you converse with people? I can't imagine you get very far if that's the case.

I'm not the least confused as to what constitutes significance. In the experiment highlighted, the object was to get something that either matched or came somewhere near the target--- which, itself was a very simple sentence. The inference that most people will walk away with is that if, in the presence of a highly-structured search for meaning the probability is nil, what does that make the odds for success in a non-structured environment (as was the case at the Big Bang) where no search was even conducted?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not the least confused as to what constitutes significance. In the experiment highlighted, the object was to get something that either matched or came somewhere near the target--- which, itself was a very simple sentence. The inference that most people will walk away with is that if, in the presence of a highly-structured search for meaning the proba ...[text shortened]... on-structured environment (as was the case at the Big Bang) where no search was even conducted?

Clearly in an unstructured search, where the object being searched for is not fixed prior to the search, the probability of finding it is much higher - if not absolutely certain. Hence my deduction that you are confused about what constitutes significance.
What you really need to explain is why you think the big bang was searching in a random manner for a specific result. In my opinion, it was not searching, and wasn't acting in a totally random manner. I have already pointed out that no forces are totally random in nature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This might help those who what to really understand how the universe works:
There is an ongoing scientific experiment called rosetta@home.
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
They seek to determine the shape of proteins using computers.
They know what atoms and molecules make up a protein and what order they are connected in, but they do not know what ...[text shortened]... l at predicting actual protein shapes.
3. Proteins in nature solve the problem in microseconds.

Wow. Talk about cherry-picking. The work that is being done there at Rosetta/Baker Lab is--- with no exaggeration--- one of the most philanthropic ventures on the internet. When we all were talking about the potentials of the internet back in the mid-90's, the idea behind this website was principally one of our justifications for wanting greater public access. Truly, these folks are trying to use the tools for the greater good.

After 13 years of working on small protein structures, they have enough informational building blocks/workable models to begin working on protein-DNA interaction specificity. What does that mean? They can start addressing biological problems owing to the hoped-for ability to work on the design. Very, very cool.

But why did twhitehead choose this particular site? Erroneously, he thought the work being performed here would somehow support his assertion that the alleged randomness of the universe's origins were being replicated in this work--- if not exactly, at least in principle. He's wrong, of course. The work being done here is related to predicting how existing free structures (very, very small ones) will react. This work is nothing at all like what the OP suggested, in principle or otherwise. The only similarity is that computers are being used.

The OP didn't ask for a prediction of possible outcomes, it merely reported the outcome after a week (roughly 60M attempts) and projected how long it would take to hit the target. The program at Robetta is predicting the outcome based on the already existing known (simple) structures involved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly in an unstructured search, where the object being searched for is not fixed prior to the search, the probability of finding it is much higher - if not absolutely certain. Hence my deduction that you are confused about what constitutes significance.
What you really need to explain is why you think the big bang was searching in a random manner for ...[text shortened]... totally random manner. I have already pointed out that no forces are totally random in nature.

Ah, so gravity is your driving force.

There is a huge difference between a simple 39 character sentence and, say, a protein consisting of 150 amino acids.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But why did twhitehead choose this particular site? Erroneously, he thought the work being performed here would somehow support his assertion that the alleged randomness of the universe's origins were being replicated in this work--- if not exactly, at least in principle. He's wrong, of course. The work being done here is related to predicting how exist a is predicting the outcome based on the already existing known (simple) structures involved.

Actually it is very similar to the OP in that there are many many possible combinations, but only one combination is being sought. Yes, I found the fact that large amounts of computer processing were required an interesting similarity too.
But the difference is that they do find the desired results - and so does nature. Why would that be? What is the difference?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, so gravity is your driving force.

Actually, all forces are driving forces. All forces of nature are non-random and result in non-random outcomes. Its not surprising then that the universe is very ordered. In fact, if you wanted to show that the current universe did not result from pure randomness then all you would need to do would be to point out that it doesn't consist of a near uniform soup of quarks - or pure energy. The whole computer guessing Shakespeare story was totally unnecessary.

There is a huge difference between a simple 39 character sentence and, say, a protein consisting of 150 amino acids.
Quite true. But there are amazing similarities in the basic problem ie how to hit upon a single sequence out of an unimaginable number of possibilities. Clearly the fact that the protein has unimaginably more possibilities only works in my favor.

My claim is that nature, by means of some very basic forces (mostly the electromagnetic force) is able to solve the problem in microseconds.
We already agree that pure randomness would take more than the known age of the universe for a computer to solve, so either the molecule is an extraordinary fast computer, or nature works by means other than pure randomness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is very similar to the OP in that there are many many possible combinations, but only one combination is being sought. Yes, I found the fact that large amounts of computer processing were required an interesting similarity too.
But the difference is that they do find the desired results - and so does nature. Why would that be? What is the difference?

It is my contention that things are mapped--- that the destination is inherent within the structure of DNA. The folks at Baker Labs are simply (ha!) trying to predict what will occur on the basis of what's inside.

The OP has a map (the sentence) and force (the 100/second attempts).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is my contention that things are mapped--- that the destination is inherent within the structure of DNA.

Correct. So we are agreed that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
Essentially, your whole thread is a strawman as you are trying to disprove something that is not in dispute by anyone.

The folks at Baker Labs are simply (ha!) trying to predict what will occur on the basis of what's inside.
Correct again! And although random guess work is a key part of their software algorithms is not the entire method or they wouldn't have a hope of solving the problem.

The OP has a map (the sentence) and force (the 100/second attempts).
Not sure what that was meant to say or imply. Are you saying that the OP is the same, different, or what?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]It's a pretty rubbish analogy anyway.
In what regard, exactly?

First, there's probably something like 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Okay, but this experiment to eke out a childishly simple sequence of otherwise meaningless letters is the equivalent of a quattuordecillion possibilities... assuming I have my zeros ...[text shortened]... busted.[/b]
Very well. Describe the structure which existed in the moment that time began.[/b]

It's a pretty rubbish analogy anyway.
In what regard, exactly?
In the regard laid out in the thread to which you are responding.

First, there's probably something like 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Okay, but this experiment to eke out a childishly simple sequence of otherwise meaningless letters is the equivalent of a quattuordecillion possibilities... assuming I have my zeros in the right spots.
Yes yes, I read your post. I note you have neglected to include in your response the highly approximate and almost certainly underestimated number of stars in each of these galaxies. I further note you have, deliberately I assume, declined to comment on the fact that I spoke only of the observable universe, not the unimaginably larger entire universe. And of course, the real number of potential sites for a childishly simple self-replicating arrangement of chemicals to arise on any one planet would itself be astonishingly large.

Secondly, you're assuming it's a purely random process, which hardly a given.
Well, by all means, tell us what the source of this intelligent impetus.
You don't really think that any non-random process involves an intelligent impetus, do you? No, I didn't think so. So we'll ignore that comment as a specious dichotomy, shall we?

Chaos theory shows the propensity for order to spontaneously arise from chaotic conditions in an entirely un-random way. So.... busted.
Very well. Describe the structure which existed in the moment that time began.
Do you require this answer in order to accept that order can spontaneously arise from chaos in nature? No, I'm sure you've encountered chaos theory. So did you just toss this unanswerable question in in an attempt to suggest a weakness in my position, despite it's irrelevance to the discussion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct. So we are agreed that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
Essentially, your whole thread is a strawman as you are trying to disprove something that is not in dispute by anyone.

[b]The folks at Baker Labs are simply (ha!) trying to predict what will occur on the basis of what's inside.
Correct again! And although random guess wor ...[text shortened]... at that was meant to say or imply. Are you saying that the OP is the same, different, or what?[/b]

So we are agreed that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
We might be, but don't tell this guy...

"Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."
-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod

Of course, Dawkins realized the absurdity of the position and has moved himself as far away as possible from that line of thinking, but he's failed to replace the idea with anything meaningful.

Like you, he tries to say all kinds of forces were at play, even before these forces can be shown to exist.

Are you saying that the OP is the same, different, or what?
Different. The lab is thinking of possible destinations based upon current position and reaction to influential agents. The OP is the destination to be found, starting with a finite number of routes.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
]It's a pretty rubbish analogy anyway.
In what regard, exactly?
In the regard laid out in the thread to which you are responding.

First, there's probably something like 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Okay, but this experiment to eke out a childishly simple sequence of otherwise meaningless letters is the equivale ...[text shortened]... empt to suggest a weakness in my position, despite it's irrelevance to the discussion?

I note you have neglected to include in your response the highly approximate and almost certainly underestimated number of stars in each of these galaxies.
You've asserted that the current estimate is woefully inadequate (or, possibly woefully inadequate), but have neglected to submit a better number. One hundred times too small? One thousand? One million? Nonetheless, no matter how off the number may be, there is more cushion for the pushing, as they say in Spinal Tap.

170/1B = 5.8M. And that's just for the second of four additional billions this sand on the seashore requires. You're talking macro when this is speaking to micro, and the micro dwarfs any macro you can conjure up! "Astonishingly large?" Hardly!

You don't really think that any non-random process involves an intelligent impetus, do you?
Name one and I'll change my mind.

Do you require this answer in order to accept that order can spontaneously arise from chaos in nature?
I was under the impression that chaos theory studies complex structures. Do you mean something different, or am I missing something?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
We might be, but don't tell this guy...

"Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."
-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod

You have clearly misunderstood him. He does not claim that nature operates via pure randomness.
You are making the mistake of taking an either/or position ie you believe that either things are totally random, or no randomness can possibly be involved - hence your conclusion on page 1:
Right now, we're just simply showing the overwhelming and profound unlikeliness that chance or randomness had anything to do with anything significant.
Clearly the above statement is false - yet as always you have not admitted your error.

Of course, Dawkins realized the absurdity of the position and has moved himself as far away as possible from that line of thinking, but he's failed to replace the idea with anything meaningful.
Why should he 'replace' the idea, when he never had the idea in the first place. No such idea has ever existed except as strawmen by the likes of you. It is not in need of replacement.

Like you, he tries to say all kinds of forces were at play, even before these forces can be shown to exist.
As far as I know Dawkins is a biologist not a physicist and as far as I know does not hypothesize much about the big bang. Would you like to give a quote where he makes claims about the big bang and forces before those forces can be shown to exist?

Different. The lab is thinking of possible destinations based upon current position and reaction to influential agents. The OP is the destination to be found, starting with a finite number of routes.
You clearly don't get my analogy. A protein is a fixed sequence of amino acids, which can be arranged at various angles. Those angles could be written down in order like so: angle1, angle2, angle3, angle4 ......
Suppose we only want to investigate the problem to the nearest degree for each angle, then each angle has less than 360 possible values.
Our challenge is to find the one sequence of angles which has the lowest energy.
It is remarkably similar in nature to the OP where the random sequences were being compared for similarity to a target sequence.
Also, rosetta at home could potentially be solved via raw random sampling - but obviously we do not have the computing power nor time to solve it that way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I note you have neglected to include in your response the highly approximate and almost certainly underestimated number of stars in each of these galaxies.
You've asserted that the current estimate is woefully inadequate (or, possibly woefully inadequate), but have neglected to submit a better number. One hundred times too small? One thousand? O ...[text shortened]... studies complex structures. Do you mean something different, or am I missing something?[/b]

Had you been drinking when you posted this one freaky? Did you actually read the post you're responding to? I mean, I know you seem to have this habit of ignoring the salient points in a post and focusing instead on some hokum point of your own, with the addition of a joke or jokey insult in an attempt to place yourself in a psychologically superior arguing position, but here you've lost me completely! How many potential sites for chemical recombination did you say there were on a single planet?

Name one what? Non-random process which involves an intelligent impetus? Or one which doesn't? And why pretend you'll change your mind? You don't have the capacity to change your mind because you're a christian, you know this and so do I, so why suggest otherwise? It implies an open-mindedness that you simply cannot have in your position.

Chaos theory relates to a whole heap of stuff. The spontaneous generation of order from chaos is an important part of that heap. So I guess you're missing something there, yes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What do you think would be considered the fastest act of nature at the molecular level?

What's an "act of nature"?

Originally posted by Palynka
What's an "act of nature"?

You had to ask.