Her Fluxive Eyes

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 profoun sampling - but obviously we do not have the computing power nor time to solve it that way.

You have clearly misunderstood him.
Clearly.
When someone says that it's all pure chance (the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled), I take that to mean that he considers that any order which exists is a result of non-purposive acts. Apparently, I'm not the only one who has misunderstood him.
Fritjof Capra:
"Jacques Monad saw evolution as a strict sequence of chance and necessity, the chance of random mutations and the necessity of survival."

Amy Bourne on Lewis Hyde:
"Hyde's insights into contemporary cultural change have been sharpened by a rich exploration into the field of evolution, as expressed by French biochemist Jacques Monad, Nobel laureate and author of Chance and Necessity. Hyde infers, "Theories of evolution have shown us that, even though it is difficult at first to imagine how a process that depends on chance can be creative, nonetheless it is by such a process that creation itself has come to be.""

Two more from Monad:
"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind chance, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology [evolution] is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses."
and
"The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty has been written down."

Of course, he's not alone in the sentiment. From Gould:
"If the history of life teaches us any lesson, it is that human beings arose as a kind of glorious accident . . . surely the kind of glorious cosmic accident resulting from the catenation (linking) of thousands of improbable events."

Robert Jastrow:
"The scientific story of genesis has chance as its basic ingredient. You look at the story in detail, and every element of it is governed by some random event. A random collision among atoms that created stars including the sun. Random collisions of the molecules of life that created the first DNA, the first self-replicating molecule. This fact has both puzzled and distressed many students of the subject. They feel that since the story leads in an unbroken line from that chance event of a threshold straight up to man, there's something unsatisfactory about it, about a story that says man's existence on earth is a product of chance."

Clearly the above statement is false - yet as always you have not admitted your error.
I stand by the veracity of the statement. You've not shown where or how it is in error.

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.
And, apparently, all of the folks cited above, including the source of the first citation.

It is not in need of replacement.
Which is it? It doesn't need replacement because it isn't in play (despite what these quotes declare otherwise) or doesn't need replacement because it's true?

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?
Here's one very, very illuminating quote from the esteemed itinerant salesman:
"Darwin’s theory works for biology, but not for cosmology."

Personally, I like this one from him, but we'll leave it for later:
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God."

It is remarkably similar in nature to the OP where the random sequences were being compared for similarity to a target sequence.
Totally different. They have no idea what the answer will be, they are making predictions about unknowns based upon knowns without concern for either the number of attempts or time required to do so. The OP asks: starting at zero, how long would it take to get to the solution?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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 superio ...[text shortened]... chaos is an important part of that heap. So I guess you're missing something there, yes.

Had you been drinking when you posted this one freaky?
I only drink when I'm alone or with someone, so probably.

I know you seem to have this habit of ignoring the salient points...
What point did I not address?

... focusing instead on some hokum point of your own...
This enables me to keep my world view entrenched and intact. Is that a problem?

... with the addition of a joke or jokey insult in an attempt to place yourself in a psychologically superior arguing position...
That's a signature move and I commend you for picking up on it. I will endeavor to make a more diligent effort to mask my psychologically superior position in the future.

How many potential sites for chemical recombination did you say there were on a single planet?
This idea makes your position harder to defend. I'm just saying.

Name one what? Non-random process which involves an intelligent impetus? Or one which doesn't?
You lost me on this one. I think I originally asked you to name a non-random process which occurs without an intelligent impetus (excepting the one currently in view, naturally).

And why pretend you'll change your mind?
Because it makes me appear open-minded, of course. Duh! Why do you pretend thusly?

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.
You've exposed the nipple on my soul.

Chaos theory relates to a whole heap of stuff.
As long as those stuffs in said heap are systems.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Clearly.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who has misunderstood him.

No, apparently you did not understand my response. You are too fixated on the "chance or no-chance" false dichotomy.
Not one of the people you quote thinks that the universe is pure randomness, not one of them claims it is so. Read those quotes again and you will see curious little phrases like "at the root of", "process", "depends on" etc.
Clearly they give chance a lot of credit, but they are hardly saying it is the only ingredient. That is your error not theirs.

I stand by the veracity of the statement. You've not shown where or how it is in error.
I hardly thought is necessary. It was a ridiculous statement and clearly did not follow from the OP.
After all your claim amounts to the claim that the phrase from Hamlet (which is claimed to be 'significant'😉, has no relation whatsoever to chance or randomness (ie the letters it consists of, their origins, the choice of words and their origins etc ad infinitum, must have had nothing whatsoever to do with chance or randomness) and you further claim that your OP shows this to be the case.
As I say - ridiculous.

And, apparently, all of the folks cited above, including the source of the first citation.
Except in your blinkered state you totally misunderstood them. For a start, not one of them as far as I can tell is talking about events prior to the Big Bang, or is there a time post big bang which is not known to have forces?

Which is it? It doesn't need replacement because it isn't in play (despite what these quotes declare otherwise) or doesn't need replacement because it's true?
It doesn't need replacement because it isn't in play. Its a strawman. (those quotes do not support the strawman).

Here's one very, very illuminating quote from the esteemed itinerant salesman:
"Darwin’s theory works for biology, but not for cosmology."
It might be illuminating to you, but it doesn't answer the challenge.

Personally, I like this one from him, but we'll leave it for later:
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God."
Again, it doesn't answer the challenge.

Totally different. They have no idea what the answer will be, they are making predictions about unknowns based upon knowns without concern for either the number of attempts or time required to do so. The OP asks: starting at zero, how long would it take to get to the solution?
You simply refuse to see the similarities. They are not 'making predictions', but rather trying out various angles and measuring the total energy. Though the answer is unknown, it is still possible to identify the answer when found (as it has the lowest energy). Hence a raw run though of all possible solutions is still one possible methodology.
I must also note that they do often know the answer - or rather the answer is known and compared to their results afterwards - but it is not used in the methodology.

But the real reason you don't want to admit the similarity is you don't want to address my point: that nature is capable of finding a 'significant' set of angles in milliseconds. So either there is an intelligence is directly involved every time a protein folds, or you have a serious problem with your whole argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, apparently you did not understand my response. You are too fixated on the "chance or no-chance" false dichotomy.
Not one of the people you quote thinks that the universe is pure randomness, not one of them claims it is so. Read those quotes again and you will see curious little phrases like "at the root of", "process", "depends on" etc.
Clearly they ...[text shortened]... in folds, or you have a serious problem with your whole argument.

If you consider the underlying laws of the universe to be part of chance, then it can be said to be pure chance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, apparently you did not understand my response. You are too fixated on the "chance or no-chance" false dichotomy.
Not one of the people you quote thinks that the universe is pure randomness, not one of them claims it is so. Read those quotes again and you will see curious little phrases like "at the root of", "process", "depends on" etc.
Clearly they ...[text shortened]... in folds, or you have a serious problem with your whole argument.

No, apparently you did not understand my response. You are too fixated on the "chance or no-chance" false dichotomy.
What are you saying here? I've no idea what you mean by my supposed false dichotomy.

Not one of the people you quote thinks that the universe is pure randomness, not one of them claims it is so.
Is "pure randomness" your phrase, mine, or someone else's? The only place I find the word "pure" is in the quote from Monad, when he said "pure chance, absolutely free but blind chance." Sounds like you're trying to play a game with words.

Read those quotes again and you will see curious little phrases like "at the root of", "process", "depends on" etc.
Clearly they give chance a lot of credit, but they are hardly saying it is the only ingredient. That is your error not theirs.
Sure, I can see that now. Like in the quote from Jastrow, when he said:
"You look at the story in detail, and every element of it is governed by some random event."
Not really sure how I could have messed that up so bad.

... that the phrase from Hamlet... has no relation whatsoever to chance or randomness...
Kinda. It was more along the lines that--- at best--- it would a long time to arrive at the correct answer. So long, in fact, that consideration of it ever happening is absurd. You call the claim ridiculous. Does this mean you think that random attempts at the correct answer is not an absurd proposition?

Except in your blinkered state you totally misunderstood them.
Now that we've put that one to bed...

For a start, not one of them as far as I can tell is talking about events prior to the Big Bang, or is there a time post big bang which is not known to have forces?
There is no claim from anyone to be speaking about anything prior to the Big Bang. Why would you insert this into the conversation?

It might be illuminating to you, but it doesn't answer the challenge.
Wasn't the challenge to offer a quote related to the topic? Asked and answered.

They are not 'making predictions', but rather trying out various angles and measuring the total energy.
Stupid me.
The very first sentence from the website--- which you first quoted--- regarding the overview of their efforts:
"The goal of current research in our laboratory is to develop an improved model of intra and intermolecular interactions and to apply this improved model to the prediction and design of macromolecular structures and interactions."
Can it get any easier? This is like taking candy from a baby.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What are you saying here? I've no idea what you mean by my supposed false dichotomy.

Go back and read my recent posts again. I explain it several times. Whenever somebody mentions 'chance' or 'randomness' you assume that they believe everything is random. Similarly, on the first page, having shown that pure random selection of letters is unlikely to have lead to a phrase from Hamlet, you then wrongly conclude that no chance could have been involved.

Is "pure randomness" your phrase, mine, or someone else's? The only place I find the word "pure" is in the quote from Monad, when he said "pure chance, absolutely free but blind chance." Sounds like you're trying to play a game with words.
It is my phrase. Look at my post that you responded to with a quote from Monad. Note that all the other quotes you gave were supposedly in contradiction to my claim that:
So we are agreed that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
Which, by the way you agreed to.

"You look at the story in detail, and [b]every element of it is governed by some random event."
Not really sure how I could have messed that up so bad.[/b]
He says "governed by". Clearly there is more than pure chance involved. Hence the quote does not prove that he believes nature operates by pure randomness hence there is no need to tell him that he is wrong (as suggested by you, and as was the supposed reason for quoting him in the first place - or have you forgotten)

There is no claim from anyone to be speaking about anything prior to the Big Bang. Why would you insert this into the conversation?
Because you said "Like you, he tries to say all kinds of forces were at play, even before these forces can be shown to exist. "
Which is why I asked for clarification as to whether you believe there was a time after the big bang when forces cannot be shown to exist. What did you mean by it?

Wasn't the challenge to offer a quote related to the topic? Asked and answered.
No it wasn't. The challenge was a quote supporting your claim "Like you, he tries to say all kinds of forces were at play, even before these forces can be shown to exist."
My challenge was: 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?
Those quotes are not relevant.

Stupid me.
I wont disagree with that. You are making the mistake of thinking that I do not know much about Rosetta@home and thinking that misquoting phrases from their website will help your case.
The analogy remains a good one, and my point remains unanswered.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Go back and read my recent posts again. I explain it several times. Whenever somebody mentions 'chance' or 'randomness' you assume that they believe everything is random. Similarly, on the first page, having shown that pure random selection of letters is unlikely to have lead to a phrase from Hamlet, you then wrongly conclude that no chance could have bee ...[text shortened]... ur case.
The analogy remains a good one, and my point remains unanswered.

Go back and read my recent posts again. I explain it several times. Whenever somebody mentions 'chance' or 'randomness' you assume that they believe everything is random.
No such assumption has been made public by me, nor will any similar-sounding statement be forthcoming. You are attempting to have me mean something I don't mean in order for you to demolish an argument I am not representing. I will have none of it, thank you very much.

Similarly, on the first page, having shown that pure random selection of letters is unlikely to have lead to a phrase from Hamlet, you then wrongly conclude that no chance could have been involved.
Eh? Is someone stepping on your oxygen supply? The OP shows the probability as nil--- far, far beyond unlikely. But it's not really "pure random selection" is it? "Pure random selection" would require many, many more options than what can be found on a keyboard. The OP narrows the playing field by having a target consisting of characters found on a keyboard. The 39 characters represented by the phrase join together represent a significant result in that information is conveyed. It could have been a smaller phrase, for certain, but as such, it is still paltry in comparison to the vast amounts of information relayed in the simplest of biological relays.

Chance plays in nearly every aspect of life, in the sense of it might or might not happen. My heart might keep beating, but it might not, as well. But chance sure as hell isn't governing whether or not my heart keeps beating. Chance describes the possibility; it doesn't guide the action. In applying the inference from the OP, i.e., unguided happenstance cannot be counted on to arrive at anything significant, it is obvious to the reasonable person that pure randomness cannot possibly be the governing principle. However, every quote I've provided up to this point asserts that chance is the foundational aspect to all of creation.

That being said, one could add other forces to the OP in hopes of achieving greater, quicker success. You could add such things as 'eliminate unsuccessful attempts' or 'keep successful attempts' or shades of either/both. However, such manipulations certainly wouldn't parrot the phrase "pure chance, absolutely free but blind chance" either in principle or function.

He says "governed by". Clearly there is more than pure chance involved.
"Clearly?" Clear to who, exactly? When a person says that "every element of it is governed by some random event" --- and this without caveat--- is there an unwritten rule, an assumed asterisk to the phrase that everyone who hears it will automatically apply the proper clarifying thought of 'but, really, there's more than just those random events doing the governing?' Maybe the quote should have been "... every element of it is co-governed by some random event" in order to relay the message that you insist he's really struggling to get out.

Which is why I asked for clarification as to whether you believe there was a time after the big bang when forces cannot be shown to exist. What did you mean by it?
Here, I was referencing your example of gravity as a force. My point was that it cannot be shown when gravity began.

No it wasn't. The challenge was a quote supporting your claim "Like you, he tries to say all kinds of forces were at play, even before these forces can be shown to exist."
My challenge was: 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?
Those quotes are not relevant.
I consider the quote I offered totally relevant, in that cosmology applies to the origin and structure of the universe, and in the quote provided, Dawkins admits that evolution only seems to fit for the study of life.

You are making the mistake of thinking that I do not know much about Rosetta@home and thinking that misquoting phrases from their website will help your case.
I can only go by what you are saying here. Who knows? Maybe you're one of the principles of the organization. If so, it seems more effective if you aligned your pronouncements here more closely with the information that is found on the website.
Your charge that I am misquoting phrases--- when I am the only one offering complete quotes from the source--- coupled with the fact that you've been outpaced, side-stepped and thrust upon now from all sides only serves to underscore your inability to grasp the salient issue.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No such assumption has been made public by me, nor will any similar-sounding statement be forthcoming. You are attempting to have me mean something I don't mean in order for you to demolish an argument I am not representing. I will have none of it, thank you very much.

Well then, now I am totally confused. What was the purpose of all those quotes? It now seems they were totally irrelevant to anything being discussed.
What is your argument anyway? It appears that both you and I agree that the original OP proves nothing new, is not representative of nature and the argument it attempts to disprove is not being put forward by anyone anyway.
So whats the point of the thread?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then, now I am totally confused. What was the purpose of all those quotes? It now seems they were totally irrelevant to anything being discussed.
What is your argument anyway? It appears that both you and I agree that the original OP proves nothing new, is not representative of nature and the argument it attempts to disprove is not being put forward by anyone anyway.
So whats the point of the thread?

I feel your pain. Suffer in silence, though, will ya?

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?

Hamlet's To Be or Not To Be soliloquy was not typed at random by a mindless machine, but written in the context of a particular drama, in the context of a writer's career, in the context of Elizabethan drama etc. In short it was written by an intelligent man in a social context. The odds of Shakespeare writing this soliloquy remain very low but not at the level of a team of monkeys or a computer randomly producing letter sequences. In retrospect, it is actually still surprising - he is constantly surprising us - but it is not hard to accept that he did. So the probabilities are not comparable.

When making analogies it is important to be clear what they are telling us. Life is confusing enough without trying to have a pseudo logical debate about a false premise. We do not need to debate something that has never happened and probably never will - a random letter sequence matching the Hamlet soliloquy - but something that has indeed happened - Shakespeare did it. Though I have read a persuasive argument that Christopher Marlowe did.

As regard the universe, Einstein protested that "God does not play with dice," but the evidence was against him and we know that nobody has yet undone the damage from Quantum Mechanics. Similarly, Darwin really wanted to support the "Argument from Design" but was drive through not years but decades of experiment and structured observation to the conclusion which he hated and struggled against, that random chance was the best explanation for the evolution of species. We now know how that random process operates in the gene and it is not at all mysterious. Many scientists, including the very greatest, would dearly love to discover design rather than chance and would be delighted to report their discovery if they could ever overcome the sheer weight of evidence in favour of randomness.

FreakyKBH is of course aware of a debate on a separate thread about this very topic : http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129761&page=14

Originally posted by finnegan
Hamlet's To Be or Not To Be soliloquy was not typed at random by a mindless machine, but written in the context of a particular drama, in the context of a writer's career, in the context of Elizabethan drama etc. In short it was written by an intelligent man in a social context. The odds of Shakespeare writing this soliloquy remain very low but not at the ...[text shortened]... iscovery if they could ever overcome the sheer weight of evidence in favour of randomness.

Wow. What a long-winded, off-topic rant of cluelessness. Congratulations. I didn't think it possible for someone to so miss a target as to not even hit air, but you've accomplished the seemingly impossible with your submission.

Your parents must be so proud.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wow. What a long-winded, off-topic rant of cluelessness. Congratulations. I didn't think it possible for someone to so miss a target as to not even hit air, but you've accomplished the seemingly impossible with your submission.

Your parents must be so proud.

You nutcase.

Originally posted by finnegan
You nutcase.

Leather-bound at that. Did you have some in need of holding?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Leather-bound at that. Did you have some in need of holding?

You tiresome, semi literate fraud.

Originally posted by finnegan
You tiresome, semi literate fraud.

Like a train wreck, ain't it?

I guess that makes you a rubber-necking purveyor of deprivation, dunnit? How does that make you feel?