?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2011 12:19:55 PM · #226

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...So...if something like string theory is correct and there are infinite other "universes" with other rules and physical properties, then there is bound to be a universe inhabited by a being so hyper-intelligent compared to us as to appear omniscient. Such a being could have created our own universe (something we think could theoretically happen even with our own level of technology at the LHC). All of this would then fall within the bounds of being "natural" as long as that adjective describes other universes.

Crazy stuff! But I don't think outside the realm of logical conclusion anymore than the ideas Greene describes in his book. There is, of course, no proof at all for this, but there is, naturally, no proof that copies of me exist in other parts of our own universe. It's just a logical conclusion.

I think that JH said it too, but you are ignoring the fact that our universe and our existence isn't random chance - what has happened in our universe is natural and in one sense probable - not supernatural (i.e. outside nature) and supremely improbable.

Chaos theory explains why highly improbable things don't occur, even given an infinite number of iterations (the monkeys would never type Shakespeare).

You are also mixing up string theory science (which generally uses the multiverse to explain quantum particle interactions) with the theory that we reside in the one finely tuned universe of many differently tuned universes. The string theory based multiverse allows for useful scientific analysis, whereas the finely tuned theory is purely philosophical.

I haven't gotten to the string theory multiverse yet in Greene's book. That's the next one.

But I do think you are wrong about the monkeys. Greene would disagree with you too. Given an infinite number of attempts, if you are looking at one possibility of a fininte number of choices, that choice will come up. In fact, it will come up an infinite number of times.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2011 01:46:54 PM · #227

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But I do think you are wrong about the monkeys. Greene would disagree with you too. Given an infinite number of attempts, if you are looking at one possibility of a fininte number of choices, that choice will come up. In fact, it will come up an infinite number of times.

Unless you believe in the continuous-creation model of the universe (now out of favor, I believe), it is not possible to have an infinite number of iterations occur before universal entropy increases to a maximum (or until whatever time before that monkeys can survive and there are typewriter ribbons available from Office Depot). I *think* Matthew is saying that chaos theory says they wouldn't finish Hamlet before the sun expands past the Earth's orbit, and "global warming" is finally acknowledged as indiputable fact (though not anthropogenic this time) ...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2011 02:00:16 PM · #228

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But you'll be left waiting an infinite amount of time before that happens.

If we put an infinite bunch of atoms together and let them bounce around for an infinite amount of time, eventually they'd bunch together and form Jesus. An infinite number of Jesus's in fact. Actually, in my infinite-Jesus theory all you need are an infinite amount of atoms (you don't even need to wait any length of time) cause somewhere in that infinity-sized container there's a table with 5 Jesus's playing poker against each other.

That's the problem with 'infinity' - we throw it around far too easily and attempt to introduce it into discussions about physical concepts... but it's an abstract concept.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2011 02:05:15 PM · #229

Originally posted by JH:

Actually, in my infinite-Jesus theory ... there's a table with 5 Jesus's playing poker against each other.

I can just see this printed/painted on black velvet ... ;-)

Though I think it's a better game with seven players ...

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/14/2011 02:21:47 PM · #230

Listen, I don't disagree with you guys. Greene is the one talking about such things. I get queasy when I think about "infinite" in a natural system.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2011 10:06:48 AM · #231

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I do think you are wrong about the monkeys. Greene would disagree with you too. Given an infinite number of attempts, if you are looking at one possibility of a fininte number of choices, that choice will come up. In fact, it will come up an infinite number of times.

...I *think* Matthew is saying that chaos theory says they wouldn't finish Hamlet before the sun expands past the Earth's orbit, and "global warming" is finally acknowledged as indiputable fact (though not anthropogenic this time) ...

Fair call - I was being imprecise with my analogies.

Monkeys who are analogical to random number generators have an almost zero chance in the lifespan of the universe. If every particle in the universe was a random letter generator the odds of one of them completing Hamlet before entropy kills destroys all information in the universe are (according to a web search) 1:1 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000 - with each zero here having a further thousand zeroes behind it.

However, a chaotic system (such as a room with containing real monkeys) can be in a state where it never produces order (represented by a complete set of Shakespeare) regardless of the amount of time expended upon it. In the real universe, every particle has an infinite number of potential locations, speeds and directions of travel, so even an infinite number of universes could not exhaust them.

Getting back to the point, I was trying to demonstrate that impossible things do not become possible merely because there may be infinite iterations. Even with an infinite variety of starting configurations for the creation of every universe in the multiverse, impossible things will not happen. There is no universe where 1+1=3. Even given an infinite number of instances, it is not inevitable that the literal Christian creation story will have come about in any of them.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/15/2011 10:42:05 AM · #232

Originally posted by JH:

...somewhere in that infinity-sized container there's a table with 5 Jesus's playing poker against each other.

Familiar with Edward Whittemore's "Jerusalem Poker"?

"The Holy City was in the kitty: the game was 5-card draw."

R.

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 15:50:01.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2011 10:55:07 AM · #233

Originally posted by Matthew:

Even with an infinite variety of starting configurations for the creation of every universe in the multiverse, impossible things will not happen.

Rightâ�� the probability of any given eventuality does not magically jump to 100% when given limitless opportunity. Even with an infinite variety of snowflakes, none will ever be shaped like a bicycle. A cow will never jump over the moon given an infinite number of attempts. An infinite number of planets (if such a thing exists) will never yield primates who fly like superman in an earth-like atmosphere. Probability requires possibility, and that which is impossible remains so no matter how many times you try. Fire breathing dragons, flying reindeer, the Ring of Power, and the various divine mythologies of history fall into this category.

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 15:58:05.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/15/2011 11:15:45 AM · #234

Originally posted by scalvert:

...the Ring of Power... [is impossible].

:-(

02/15/2011 11:29:50 AM · #235

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by scalvert:
...the Ring of Power... [is impossible].

:-(

Indeed.

I must admit at being disappointed that the cow will never jump over the moon. Another childhood dream, shattered.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2011 11:35:02 AM · #236

Well, you didn't say impossible. You said 1:1........(followed by a bunch of zeros).

If a number, no matter how small, no matter how many zeroes behind it, is multiplied by infinity, the answer is infinity.

If zero is multiplied by infinity, the answer is zero.

So you just have to make up your mind when you're talking to me. Are the chances zero? or are they just really, really small? The answer is completely different depending on which you are talking about. Monkeys typing out shakespeare falls into the very small category, not the zero category. If you are limiting them by the age of the universe you are just not giving them infinite iterations...

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 16:37:51.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/15/2011 11:36:15 AM · #237

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...when your talking to me...

smirk

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/15/2011 11:38:00 AM · #238

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...when your talking to me...

smirk

Grammar bitch.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

02/15/2011 11:52:39 AM · #239

Originally posted by Matthew:

(...) entropy kills destroys all information in the universe are (...)

I think this use of entropy as a limiting absolute that disqualifies the use of infinity in applied maths is not a whole lot better than using the god concept to deny all limitations.

Still n all, let's see if we can't dredge up some Julian Huxley -

Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/15/2011 11:53:57 AM · #240

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So you just have to make up your mind when you're talking to me. Are the chances zero? or are they just really, really small? The answer is completely different depending on which you are talking about. Monkeys typing out shakespeare falls into the very small category, not the zero category. If you are limiting them by the age of the universe you are just not giving them infinite iterations...

"Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10 with 183,800 zeros." (For comparison, the number of particles in the observable universe is 10 with 80 zeros.) "As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an eventâ�¦", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys."

02/15/2011 11:58:36 AM · #241

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So you just have to make up your mind when you're talking to me. Are the chances zero? or are they just really, really small? The answer is completely different depending on which you are talking about. Monkeys typing out shakespeare falls into the very small category, not the zero category. If you are limiting them by the age of the universe you are just not giving them infinite iterations...

"Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10 with 183,800 zeros." (For comparison, the number of particles in the observable universe is 10 with 80 zeros.) "As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an eventâ�¦", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys."

Well, that's not an infinite number of iterations? is it? You see, Greene changes everything with the assumption that the universe is infinite. Again, his assumption, not mine.

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 16:59:33.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/15/2011 12:03:26 PM · #242

I can see it now.

Monkey number 10^8273 sitting at his typewriter. He's looking tired as he's just spent the past two weeks randomly hitting keys, but unbeknown to him has actually produced all the words of Hamlet. All of them, except one. In fact, he's on the last letter of the last word; "off". His finger hovers over the "f"..

A universe-worth of cosmologists, philosophers, and mathematicians hold their collective breaths.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2011 12:05:00 PM · #243

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If this thread was started four billion years ago we could have placed bets as to which was least likely or impossible: monkeys with opposable thumbs writing shakespeare or intelligent beings spawning from goo. :P

02/15/2011 12:07:15 PM · #244

Originally posted by JH:

That's an AWESOME picture. I love it! LOL.

I wish I could just cut and paste from my Kindle, but I can't so I have to type it out. Forgive any typos, I'm going to try to go fast. From Brian Greene:

Pursuing the same theme, imagine that Randy, an expert card dealer, has shuffled a gargantuan number of decks, one by one, and neatly stacked each next to the others. Can the order of cards in every shuffled deck be different, or must they repeat? The answer depends on the number of decks. Fifty-two cards can be arranged in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000 different ways. If the number of decks Randy shuffles exceeds the number of different possible c ard orderings, then some of the shuffled decks would match. If Randy were to shuffle an infinite number of decks, the orderings of the cards would necessarily repeat an infinite number of times. As with Imelda and her outfits, an infinite number of occurrences with a finite number of possible configurations ensures that outcomes are infinitely repeated.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2011 12:11:43 PM · #245

Ah, I've found a great take on the monkey-typewriter problem;

//milesmathis.com/monkey.html

"Let us hit it one more time, for good measure. Using only the terminology and logic of modern statistics, let us notice that there is a possibility that the first string created by the first monkey is all Sâ��s. If the complete works of Shakespeare is composed of 10^7 letters, say, it is possible the stupid monkey sat there for years and never typed anything but the letter S, 10^7 times. That is one of the potential outcomes, and no math or logic can deny it. If we add a second â��tossâ��, either by adding another monkey or letting our first monkey have another go, we find, among all the other possibilities, the possibility that S is again typed 10^7 times. In every toss, this is one of the possibilities. Therefore, by extrapolation, we can easily see that in an infinite number of tosses, there must exist the possibility that S and only S is typed. QED, there is a possibility that the complete works of Shakespeare is not typed. It is not typed each time and it is not typed every time. In infinite time, it is never typed.

In fact, as I hope you can now see, there are an almost infinite number of combinations where the monkeys fail, even at infinity. This is enough, by itself, to disprove the current theorem.

Interestingly, one of the possible outcomes is that every monkey writes the complete works of Shakespeare every single time. Because that is one of the potential outcomes, does it mean it must happen? No, of course not. It is easy to see that going to infinity does nothing to increase the odds of it happening. In fact, going to infinity infinitely decreases the odds of it happening.

But otherwise intelligent people assume that because one monkey might succeed, he must succeed in infinite time. This assumption is false. In one attempt, he might succeed, but he might not. In a billion attempts, he might succeed, but he might not. Making the number larger does not change this. Going to infinity does not change it either. Unless there is a pre-established mechanism that guarantees that all possible combinations will be covered, there is no logical reason to assume they will be. As I have shown, there are an infinite number of combinations where the monkeys fail, even at infinity."

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 17:12:16.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/15/2011 12:12:31 PM · #246

Those monkeys are assholes. I've a copy of the third 2006 print of the second edition of Oxford's complete Shakespeare. The binding is impeccable but for the fact that pages 691 through 754 are missing, taking out all but Act one of Hamlet, the first Act of Troilus and Cressida, and all of Twelfth Night. Ham-fisted monkeys. On the plus side, I intend to sell this printing as a curiosity for many thousands of dollars in the decades to come.

02/15/2011 12:21:05 PM · #247

I'll have to crunch your post JH. I either suspect the baseline assumptions are different from Greene's or your guy is wrong. Greene's example is succinct and easy to grasp. I don't have the time at this second to do it though.

02/15/2011 12:43:15 PM · #248

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Applying my Miles Mathis approach to Greene's card-shuffling example;

There exists a possibility that Randy shuffles the deck 80 trillion times and the cards end up in exactly the same order for each shuffle.

It is highly improbable - but it still exists as a possibility. So no matter if he shuffles the deck 80 trillion times, 80 zillion times, 10^800,800 times, or an infinite number of times, for as long as the possibility exists then we cannot say with 100% certainty that infinite shuffles will result in infinite matched decks.

He could, in fact, end up with an infinite line of shuffled decks, each of them in exactly the same order.

As Miles Mathis says: "What Huxley should have said is that the monkeys may, purely by chance, create the complete works of Shakespeare. That is true. It is nearly infinitely unlikely, but it is possible. That is one of the possible outcomes, and it may be hit in infinite time. But there is certainly no guarantee that it will be hit. There is no 'must' about it."

Message edited by author 2011-02-15 18:13:06.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/15/2011 12:51:35 PM · #249

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I either suspect the baseline assumptions are different from Greene's or your guy is wrong.

I notice you don't include the possibility that Greene is wrong. The example JH posted isn't easy to grasp? You (or Greene if you pass the buck again) are assuming that every possibility is covered by infinity, but completely ignoring probability. If one of those possibilities is that the monkeys type the letter 'S' every single time, then clearly every outcome is not possible since they would never type a single word of Hamlet. The probability that they always type 'S' is vanishingly low, but like you said: not zero.