|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/19/2012 : 04:16:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
| That is a false statement. He began with the estimated number of Baryons only in the observable universe only. The total number of particles is much, much higher. He did not include photons or guage bosons, for example. Why not? They are capable of state changes. Conglomerations of Baryons (atoms) are also capable of changing states independent of the states of the Baryons that make them up. So are groups of atoms (molecules). |
OK, this seems pretty valid for discussion. I'll play. Please tell us how you define a Baryon...... |
Are you kidding us? Baryon is a well-established classification for a certain kind of particle. Clearly defined with minimal "wiggle room".
If we are talking physics and particle physics in particular, we go by scientific consensus. Which means we use the Standard Model. If we chose to only consider baryons, we're ignoring leptons which are just as important for the existence of Earth as are baryons. And they match up at least the number of baryons in the universe. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 06:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nonono. That's a number I grabbed out of thin air, asking Jerry, "why not a million states instead of just two?" He had no answer, of course. |
I think I get that one. Dembski is concerned about the probability of something happening, which is a state change. Not interested in from what to what else, but the change itself. It's a binary proposition: it either changes or it does not.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 09:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by JerryB
I want to talk about "Borel's law" some more, because, well, it's not a real thing in probability. Its very statement is self-contradictory:
"Any event whose odds are worse than 1 to 10^150 has probability zero."
This means for 0 < x < 10^-150
P(event with probability x) = 0
But, by definition
P(event with probability x) = x > 0
It's logically false, and so impossible to argue otherwise.
"Borel's law" is merely a rule of thumb for within a particular context. |
I think you are wanting to go to this formula, if it helps:
Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N)
I'm afraid you didn't really show anything, logically or mathematically as far as I can see. You might want to expand or clarify.....
|
This is irrelevant, I'm not talking about a series of times where a single event can occur, I assume you're saying (1-p)^N, which is true, but it also assume each possible occurrence of E is independent. Suppose we make this assumption and, yes, we have 1 - (1-p)^N, which is not zero for 0 < p < 10^-150, and so it's still contradictory.
The statement "event E cannot happen" is P(E) = 0
The statement "event E has odds 10^150 + 1 to 1" is P(E) = 1/[10^150 + 1]
The statement "event E has odds and 10^150 + 1 to 1 and therefore event E cannot happen" is
P(E) = 1/[10^150 + 1], therefore, P(E) = 0, which is contradictory.
One may argue the axiomatization of probability is flawed and therefore this is invalid, but I don't believe Dembski is arguing this.
|
OK, stop right here. What on Earth has ANY of this got to do with ANYTHING we are discussing? Is the thread morphing into a 10th grade math class for the readers or something?
The conversation hinges on an upper probability barrier arrived at by multiplying plank time (the briefest time-period in which ANYTHING can occur) [times] the number of particles in the universe (ALL OF THE MATTER available in the universe to which something can happen to) [times] the estimated number of seconds that have elapsed during which the universe has been in existence.
This gives us a number (10^150) that can be used as an upper probability boundary and utilizing that number, we can safely conclude that if an event has less odds than 1:10^150 of occurring, it cannot POSSIBLY occur......
Why? Because we know that matter does not travel faster than the speed of light in classical physics (that's what plank time is); we know that there is a limited amount of time since the big bang for ANYTHING to occur and we know there is a limited amount of matter in the universe WE are privy to call our island home TO which some reaction or process may occur.
Those are the facts.....Now....you guys can argue till the cows come home that there are a different number of particles in existence, that plank time should be calculated differently or that the universe is older or newer than most scientists believe it to be......but here's all you'll get even if you succeed in convincing me that Dembski's data is incorrect and yours is correct......
You'll STILL have a UPB, it will just be a slightly different value.. and you will not have advanced your argument a single iota that there were unlimited amounts of time or event chances in which life could occur via natural processes........
And you eventually arrive to an ultimate destination as if you had traversed the GREATEST expanse of a Euclidean geometric universe.......Right the heck back where you started from... <:0) |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 09:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Let's go to a lower level and see where errors may be occurring in my understanding or yours: I don't know physics well but I do know probability very well. |
OK, but trust me......you'll learn some theoretical physics if you climb into THIS subject very deeply.....
I am assuming this:
1. A state change in the universe can occur during each Planck time |
While this is only true in theory (of course) you can certainly assume that Dembski's math hinges on that assumption. The shortest time period available (I can also show you how plank time is arrived at if you're interested....plank time itself is also arrived at mathematically.....and let me guess.....SHOCK...you are a mathematician....*wink*
The other assumptions are cool with me.
Because the estimated age of the universe is 13.7 billion years = 4 * 10^17 seconds. I am taking out the constant multiplier as is typical, so multiply 10^17 with 10^80 and 10^45 and we get 10^142. 10^8 is the missing factor to get 10^150.
|
OK, you want the UPB to be 10^142? But why? LOL......that just sets your argument back even more....Of course, I'm assuming you are not an Intelligent Design advocate....I dunno, maybe you are..... |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 10:03:30 [Permalink]
|
| It's not time that's a factor. Dembski's calculation only holds if Baryons can be in only one of two states, which means he can simply count "state changes." But if a Baryon can be in one of four states, then a "state change" would require two bits, not one. If a Baryon could be in any one of a million states, then each of the 1080 particles could "change state" in 106 ways, but you won't find any such multiplier in the UPB calculation because Dembski just arbitrarily ignored the possibility. |
I see you COMPLETELY ignored my request for references on this and just go back to jabbering. Figures.
I just want to point out to the readers (less they be dazzled by the B.S. in this post which is all it is) that Dave ignores completely that Dembski'd math is BASED ON TIME to draw this above conclusion: "It's not time that's a factor..."
Nor did that math have a THING to do with bits or the quadronic changes of states that Baryons can exist in.....Not a word or sentence in this entire paragraph could be more irrelevant.
Actually, that might be a good way to get an actual, practical, universal probability bound: how many cards could have been dealt over the age of the universe? If we set the deal rate at one/second (arbitrary but convenient), 1017 cards could have been dealt. So I propose a UPB of 1/(n!) where n is the number of cards that could be dealt. 1/(1017!) is really tiny. Hell, if there were only a million cards in the deck, the UPB would be on the order of 10-5,565,707. I hereby declare Dembski's calculation to be off by at least 5,565,557 orders of magnitude.
|
And he has spoken.......Non of this makes a LICK of sense...but he has spoken...LOL....
We can now use Dave's new UPB that entails some deity out there on a white cloud dealing Vegas-style cards for the last 13.7 billion years.....Of course, he will STILL have lost the design debate because we now have a UPB he agrees with, but that hasn't yet occurred to him so....SHHhhh..... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 11:42:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
OK, stop right here. What on Earth has ANY of this got to do with ANYTHING we are discussing? Is the thread morphing into a 10th grade math class for the readers or something?
The conversation hinges on an upper probability barrier arrived at by multiplying plank time (the briefest time-period in which ANYTHING can occur) [times] the number of particles in the universe (ALL OF THE MATTER available in the universe to which something can happen to) [times] the estimated number of seconds that have elapsed during which the universe has been in existence.
This gives us a number (10^150) that can be used as an upper probability boundary and utilizing that number, we can safely conclude that if an event has less odds than 1:10^150 of occurring, it cannot POSSIBLY occur......
Why? Because we know that matter does not travel faster than the speed of light in classical physics (that's what plank time is); we know that there is a limited amount of time since the big bang for ANYTHING to occur and we know there is a limited amount of matter in the universe WE are privy to call our island home TO which some reaction or process may occur.
Those are the facts... |
No, they're not. The choice of values to use and how to combine them into a UPB are not "facts." And you have consistently been unable to justify Demski's choices.| ..Now....you guys can argue till the cows come home that there are a different number of particles in existence, that plank time should be calculated differently or that the universe is older or newer than most scientists believe it to be... |
See, Mach? I told you that it'd all be over his head....but here's all you'll get even if you succeed in convincing me that Dembski's data is incorrect and yours is correct......
You'll STILL have a UPB, it will just be a slightly different value... |
Slightly? The one I proposed has over five million more zeroes after the decimal point than Dembski's. The UPB that Mach has been working on allows for events that are 10140 orders of magnitude less probable than Dembski's. This isn't quibbling over a few extra zeroes, it's entering a realm where Knuth's up-arrow notation might become necessary.| ...and you will not have advanced your argument a single iota that there were unlimited amounts of time or event chances in which life could occur via natural processes........ |
Nobody is arguing any such thing. Nobody is saying that the chances are unlimited. We're saying that even if a UPB makes mathematical sense, Dembski's UPB is a vast (improbably so!) overestimation.
Also:| I see you COMPLETELY ignored my request for references on this and just go back to jabbering. Figures. |
Where do you expect me to find references saying that Dembski ignored a possibility?| I just want to point out to the readers (less they be dazzled by the B.S. in this post which is all it is) that Dave ignores completely that Dembski'd math is BASED ON TIME to draw this above conclusion: "It's not time that's a factor..." |
Oh, I see how you misunderstood me. You were arguing about time, and what you quoted, above, was me saying, "I'm not concerned about that part of Dembski's UPB right now." I don't dispute that Dembski's UPB includes time and number of particles. I was saying that he ignored the number of states those particles could be in.| Nor did that math have a THING to do with bits or the quadronic changes of states that Baryons can exist in.....Not a word or sentence in this entire paragraph could be more irrelevant. |
So you're saying that you don't see how the number of possible states for particles might change Dembski's UPB?| And he has spoken.......Non of this makes a LICK of sense...but he has spoken...LOL.... |
Glad you got the joke, there.| We can now use Dave's new UPB that entails some deity out there on a white cloud dealing Vegas-style cards for the last 13.7 billion years... |
I guess Dembski's UPB entails some deity making particles interact, then, if your criticism is to be consistent.| ..Of course, he will STILL have lost the design debate because we now have a UPB he agrees with, but that hasn't yet occurred to him so....SHHhhh..... |
Oh, would you like to use my proposed massive over-estimate of a UPB? Great!
Let's see... 10-5,565,707 is about 18 million coin tosses. Quite a bit more than 500. It's also quite a bit more than the size of, say, the Escherichia coli genome (in bits), so now we know that that bacteria could just come about "by chance," no intelligence needed.
This is why the magnitude of the alleged UPB is important. In fact, if it's smaller than 10-1,818,181,818, then the whole human genome (six billion bits) could easily pop into existence entirely by chance within the age of the universe. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 21:04:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
..Now....you guys can argue till the cows come home that there are a different number of particles in existence, that plank time should be calculated differently or that the universe is older or newer than most scientists believe it to be... |
See, Mach? I told you that it'd all be over his head. |
Yeah, we didn't question any of those 3 assumptions, and we actually used all of them in our discussion.
| I see you COMPLETELY ignored my request for references on this and just go back to jabbering. Figures. |
Where do you expect me to find references saying that Dembski ignored a possibility? |
This is just a silly demand.
JerryB, when it suits you, you attack the mathematical arguments as being high school math class and other times, demand references for the same level mathematical arguments: they're all middle/high school combinatorics and they're very understandable for me and apparently more so for Dave
| I just want to point out to the readers (less they be dazzled by the B.S. in this post which is all it is) that Dave ignores completely that Dembski'd math is BASED ON TIME to draw this above conclusion: "It's not time that's a factor..." |
Oh, I see how you misunderstood me. You were arguing about time, and what you quoted, above, was me saying, "I'm not concerned about that part of Dembski's UPB right now." I don't dispute that Dembski's UPB includes time and number of particles. I was saying that he ignored the number of states those particles could be in.[quote]Nor did that math have a THING to do with bits or the quadronic changes of states that Baryons can exist in.....Not a word or sentence in this entire paragraph could be more irrelevant. |
Much of our discussion centered on how many distinct events could occur during a single Planck time, but when we took the exponent at the end of 10^62, that was 10^45 Planck times per second times 10^17 seconds since the beginning of the universe, same numbers as Dembski, but without the extra 10^8 factor. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/19/2012 21:05:27 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 21:07:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Because the estimated age of the universe is 13.7 billion years = 4 * 10^17 seconds. I am taking out the constant multiplier as is typical, so multiply 10^17 with 10^80 and 10^45 and we get 10^142. 10^8 is the missing factor to get 10^150.
|
OK, you want the UPB to be 10^142? But why? LOL......that just sets your argument back even more....Of course, I'm assuming you are not an Intelligent Design advocate....I dunno, maybe you are.....
|
No, I think it's meaningless, but Dembski did this himself, he called 10^25 "about a billion times more than the age of the universe." |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2012 : 21:14:01 [Permalink]
|
But, I've found that, really, it seems JerryB is making attacking Dembski easier than it really is by making his claims seem stronger than they are, his claim is not that these events don't happen randomly, but that they're unlikely to have been random: yet, it's still hopelessly without meaningful context, but the fact that vastly more distinct events could occur per Planck time than Dembski acknowledges seems to damage his point strongly.
It appears around a dozen academic papers have been published attacking some point or another regarding the UPB, though after reading a couple, I haven't seen some of the points we've discussed mentioned, but there are many more. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/20/2012 02:19:44 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 06:35:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, would you like to use my proposed massive over-estimate of a UPB? Great!
Let's see... 10-5,565,707 is about 18 million coin tosses. Quite a bit more than 500. It's also quite a bit more than the size of, say, the Escherichia coli genome (in bits), so now we know that that bacteria could just come about "by chance," no intelligence needed.
This is why the magnitude of the alleged UPB is important. In fact, if it's smaller than 10-1,818,181,818, then the whole human genome (six billion bits) could easily pop into existence entirely by chance within the age of the universe.
|
It should be noted that not just the one sequence would have been 'tossed', a million +/- combinations were flipped, 999,999 of them we're unviable and died, one was viable which we call Escherichia coli. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 12/20/2012 06:36:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 08:52:49 [Permalink]
|
| It just "clicked" for me: the major problem with Dembski's UPB is that he failed to exponentiate. He stuck with multiplication, instead. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 13:40:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It just "clicked" for me: the major problem with Dembski's UPB is that he failed to exponentiate. He stuck with multiplication, instead.
|
Yep, when counting the number of things,
x*y is like saying you have to choose 1 of x possibilities in category 1 and 1 in y possibilities in category 2
x^y is like saying you have to choose 1 of x possibilities in each of y categories
So
10^80*10^45*10^17
would count the number of possible state changes since the beginning of the universe assuming
(1) A state change is a change in exactly one of the 10^80 particles. (if it's any subset, we must go with 2^(10^80) here)
(2) A particle can only change to exactly one different state.
(3) Inexplicably, also choosing 1 Planck time out of 10^45*10^17 in the history of the universe where a particular particle would change state (exactly what needs to be exponentiated!)
We had:
For a universe of k particles and each particle has s possible states to change to,
(# subsets of size 0)*s^0 + (# subsets of size 1)*s^1 + ... + (# subsets of size k)*s^k |
He used only the (# subsets of size 1)*s^1 = 10^80 * 1 term and multiplied by 10^62 (and the other factor 10^8 for whatever reason). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 14:56:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
We had:For a universe of k particles and each particle has s possible states to change to,
(# subsets of size 0)*s^0 + (# subsets of size 1)*s^1 + ... + (# subsets of size k)*s^k |
He used only the (# subsets of size 1)*s^1 = 10^80 * 1 term and multiplied by 10^62 (and the other factor 10^8 for whatever reason). |
Well, it's worse than that, isn't it?
With dice or coins, the total number of possible sequences would be given by smn, where:s is the number of sides on each die,
m is the total number of dice, and
n is the number of times they get rolled. Dembski just multiplied m by n (and then multiplied by the mysterious 108) and inverted the result, completely ignoring the fact that he need to make an estimate of s and then exponentiate by mn.
So the UPB would be s-mn. If we plug in the number of particles for m, age of the universe in Planck Times for n and assume two states for s, we get the now-familiar 2-10142.
The problems with applying this to the real world, of course, are many. Using the number of Baryons alone for m is a massive undercount since we know lots of things other than Baryons can carry a "state." We can get no single value for s without doing a weighted average or something similar, since all the various things counted by m have different numbers of states available to them (a lone proton may have only a few, while a Hydrogen atom has at least 21), and such an average is probably close to one, to be fair (much of the universe is boring). And then assuming everything counted by m can change states each and every Planck Time is absurdly generous, but what else could one do?
And then, of course, we can generate (almost) arbitrarily-low-probability events at will through processes that don't take the universe's age to complete, which just blows the notion that the UPB is at all useful out of the water. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 16:36:40 [Permalink]
|
What I said he did is equivalent to what you're saying he did -- that full sum is 2^(10^80) rather than his 10^80, which fits with what we did.
By multiplying the 10^80 by 10^62, he's counting the number of the binary changes of some single particle could occur at some single point in time. If this is what he were trying to do he would have done it correctly :)
He needs the number of possible states of a particle (some k) of any subset, 2^(10^80), of particles occurring at any point in time (which is where we exponentiate 10^62, not multiply, as you say).
[2^(10^80)]^(10^62) = 2^(10^142) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/20/2012 16:37:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2012 : 20:40:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What I said he did is equivalent to what you're saying he did -- that full sum is 2^(10^80) rather than his 10^80, which fits with what we did. |
I agree, I'm just wrapping my head around Dembski's mistake in a slightly different way than you are.| By multiplying the 10^80 by 10^62, he's counting the number of the binary changes of some single particle could occur at some single point in time. If this is what he were trying to do he would have done it correctly :) |
Well, no.
1 is the number of binary changes of a single particle at a single point in time.
2 is the number of possible states of a binary particle at a single point in time.
21062 is the number of possible states trajectories a single particle could take over the age of the universe, assuming a possible change at each Planck interval.
21080 is the number of possible states of 1080 independent particles at a single point in time.
1080×1062 is Dembski's UPB, the number of particles times the number of possible state changes, but not states, so it's meaningless. If anything, I think Dembski was aiming for (1080)(1062), and missed. Still, that number would be over 1061 orders of magnitude larger than what he calculated, and so offer generous room for even the largest known genome to pop into existence randomly, which isn't at all what he set out to prove. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Our creator was a computer
