Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Our creator was a computer
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2012 :  20:54:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm saying a single particle as in any single one of the 10^80 particles and then multiplying by each possible Planck time. Multiplying these will count all pairs (x, y) where x is one of the 10^80 particles and y is any one of the 10^62 Planck time increments in history.

It's not meaningless, it does count the number of ways to change exactly one particle at exactly one available time increment, but that's not useful.

"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 21:00:59
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2012 :  22:24:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

I'm saying a single particle as in any single one of the 10^80 particles and then multiplying by each possible Planck time. Multiplying these will count all pairs (x, y) where x is one of the 10^80 particles and y is any one of the 10^62 Planck time increments in history.

It's not meaningless, it does count the number of ways to change exactly one particle at exactly one available time increment, but that's not useful.
Ah, okay. I get it.

Going back a bit, for giggles I ran my card-deck randomizer with 100,000 cards. I won't reproduce the results here (it'd be a 700 KB comment), but it only took 134 seconds to generate an event of probability 1/(2.8×10456573). I'm going to crank it up to a million cards...

Edited to add that a million cards took 26 minutes.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/21/2012 :  19:44:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Side note on big numbers:

It appears that we'd need 10123 (or so) black holes with a mass close to that of the Andromeda Galaxy to get 210142 states.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2012 :  13:44:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Going back a bit, for giggles I ran my card-deck randomizer with 100,000 cards. I won't reproduce the results here (it'd be a 700 KB comment), but it only took 134 seconds to generate an event of probability 1/(2.8×10456573). I'm going to crank it up to a million cards...

Edited to add that a million cards took 26 minutes.
And ten million cards took three hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds. It took ten minutes to just log all the numbers to a file.

I've got another machine working on calculating 10,000,000!, but it's going to take a while, also. If the machine has enough memory. Testing the code on 1,000,000! required several megabytes, and it gets exponentially worse.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9688 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2012 :  14:28:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Dave W.

Going back a bit, for giggles I ran my card-deck randomizer with 100,000 cards. I won't reproduce the results here (it'd be a 700 KB comment), but it only took 134 seconds to generate an event of probability 1/(2.8×10456573). I'm going to crank it up to a million cards...

Edited to add that a million cards took 26 minutes.
And ten million cards took three hours, 35 minutes and 32 seconds. It took ten minutes to just log all the numbers to a file.

I've got another machine working on calculating 10,000,000!, but it's going to take a while, also. If the machine has enough memory. Testing the code on 1,000,000! required several megabytes, and it gets exponentially worse.

Do you have any projections on when your computer becomes self-aware?




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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2012 :  17:01:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Do you have any projections on when your computer becomes self-aware?
I wish one could get there by shuffling virtual cards and calculating factorials.

I'm just one of those people willing to code and let run brute-force algorithms that take hours or days to complete.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2012 :  10:22:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Machi4velli

I'm saying a single particle as in any single one of the 10^80 particles and then multiplying by each possible Planck time. Multiplying these will count all pairs (x, y) where x is one of the 10^80 particles and y is any one of the 10^62 Planck time increments in history.

It's not meaningless, it does count the number of ways to change exactly one particle at exactly one available time increment, but that's not useful.
Ah, okay. I get it.

Going back a bit, for giggles I ran my card-deck randomizer with 100,000 cards. I won't reproduce the results here (it'd be a 700 KB comment), but it only took 134 seconds to generate an event of probability 1/(2.8×10456573). I'm going to crank it up to a million cards...

Edited to add that a million cards took 26 minutes.


"you're an intelligent being and designed the random event"

"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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/24/2012 :  13:41:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

"you're an intelligent being and designed the random event"
Yeah, in which case every human-designed test of design should give positive results, as I mentioned before.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2013 :  09:46:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

I've got another machine working on calculating 10,000,000!, but it's going to take a while, also. If the machine has enough memory. Testing the code on 1,000,000! required several megabytes, and it gets exponentially worse.
I know you guys were hanging on this... the results are finally in!

10,000,000! is 1.202×1065,657,059.

This 218,108,030-bit number took my pitiful 2.7 GHz PC (with my non-optimized code) about 4.3 days to calculate, and then another 7.3 days to figure out the decimal representation (also not very optimized).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1487 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2013 :  14:50:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Dave W.

I've got another machine working on calculating 10,000,000!, but it's going to take a while, also. If the machine has enough memory. Testing the code on 1,000,000! required several megabytes, and it gets exponentially worse.
I know you guys were hanging on this... the results are finally in!

10,000,000! is 1.202×1065,657,059.

This 218,108,030-bit number took my pitiful 2.7 GHz PC (with my non-optimized code) about 4.3 days to calculate, and then another 7.3 days to figure out the decimal representation (also not very optimized).

Wolfram Alpha calculated it in a split second.

1.202423400515903456140153487944307569767680... × 10^65657059
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2013 :  19:34:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Wolfram Alpha calculated it in a split second.

1.202423400515903456140153487944307569767680... × 10^65657059
Yeah, I did it the brute-force way. I learned about the Gamma function just now. And I'm sure there's a much faster method for converting binary to decimal than the one I used (which runs fast enough when there are fewer than a few hundred digits involved), I just don't know it.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000