Athiests.... "Given infinite time, anything can happen"?

[lolwatever]

Heya Guys,

I kinda began to become sleepless after pondering so much about the potential of some of the theories our athiest buddies came up with.... I think it is indeed.... revolutionary..

Pygosceliss said:

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

My question is, given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen? :rollseyes Even if they defy all the known laws of physics?

In the above quote for example, it defies all the laws of dynamics, entropy and even simple logic.

Pygo agreed that 2 parallel lines can never intersect given infinite time, he said:

"As to your parrarel line example, you've set that up in such a way that them crossing is an actual impossibility "

so why did he conclude that "he knows" a car can be assembled from wreckage given infinite time? And even more so, made a monstrous claim that even a universe like this was destined to come into being. :??

Furthermore, according to Pygo, given infinite time, being can be created from non being. i.e. It was inevitable that our universe would come to exist out of nothing given infinite time.

Don't those ideas directly oppose even the most elementary scientific principles we know of? (law of conservation etc..)

So my question is ... is that the view of an unlearned athiest or does that view resonate in the minds of other atheists as well? Could someone give me analytical proof for such view if it is true?

Personally i think there's always a cause and effect, being can't come from non being except by a cause. Since Quantum Cosmology tells us that it was a purely unpredictable and not a result of any prior physical event, it indicates that there was a supernatural cause.....

I'd liek to hear what athiests have to say... and oh yeh, Muslims welcome if they can help trying to solve this mistery :)

all the best :D

[lolwatever]

ps: that first quote, is about me asking whether a tornado thrashing around a dumpster for long enough can form a car.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
The way i've always seen it is everything has a source whether they be tangible or intangible. The source I refer to is Allah/God.

given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen?

I don't think everything could happen, but a lot would. In order for X to happen, Y must trigger it. When X happens, it may have to destroy (permanently) Z therefore preventing Z to ever be triggered. In the event of Z being triggered, P may be created and so on and so forth.

In other words, everything is connected - unlimited time wouldn't allow everything to be achieved as it depends on many many other factors.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

[lolwatever]

I have fixed the reference with regadrs to the marble idea below. It was Trumble and not Pygo who said it.

It is the only unintentially misattributed quote which seems to be causing people to go off topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:sl:
The way i've always seen it is everything has a source whether they be tangible or intangible. The source I refer to is Allah/God.



I don't think everything could happen, but a lot would. In order for X to happen, Y must trigger it. When X happens, it may have to destroy (permanently) Z therefore preventing Z to ever be triggered. In the event of Z being triggered, P may be created and so on and so forth.

In other words, everything is connected - unlimited time wouldn't allow everything to be achieved as it depends on many many other factors.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

:sl:

Jazaks bro amir for input, i agree, given infinite time, alot can happen, whether 'anything' can happen is a diff story :)

I think what atheists keep forgetting is the concept of 'infinity over a certain interval'.

For example, when Trumble claimed that if i throw marbles from a skyscraper, he said a sentence saying "Silly is an idiot" could be formed is possible (:uuh:) given infinite time since infinitely many arrangements can be happen.

He forgot to realise that just because 'infinite' number of arrangemetns can happen, doesnt mean 'anything can happen'.... here's a good way to explain it to them i think:

The blu = marbles
The purple outline = Region of physicially possible points for marbles to land
The black axes = Our co-ordinates for the example.


What he doesnt understand is, that you can have an infinite number of marble arrangements in the interval between [x1, x2] and [y1,y2].

just like for example... ther'es an infinite number of decimal numbers between the numbers 2.6 and 3.7 for example. Just because the decimals are infinite, doesnt mean any decimal number could occur (e.g. the number 10.6 isnt possible).


So in short.... i think Athiests like Pygo need to realise that given infinite time, you get infinite arrangemetns within a certain interval. But not infinite arrangemetns over an infinite interval.

Hence meaning that being can not be created from non being given infinite time unless there is something supernatural behind it.

watcha think bro (n everyone else)? :)

:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

:omg: ur killin me wit the smartness. sounds fine to me! lol

[lolwatever]

:omg: ur killin me wit the smartness. sounds fine to me! lol

lol sis! not as smart as it seems hehe..

thx nweayz, all thanks is due to Allah:thumbs_up

wonder wat Pygo thinks...

[lolwatever]

lol do athiests check out this science section in first place... :cry: i thought its best place 2 plug it :?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

or maybe someone doesnt have an answer....:? or even better...trying to put one together ;D :p
immm jusss playinnnnnnn lol.

[Woodrow]

There are a few small flaws in the concept of the universe being the result of random infinite combinations over an infinite period of time.

Matter is not infinite. It does have a determined starting point. True it is a large length of time. But, it is still finite and not infinite.

Next there is not an infinite amount of mastter. A finite amount exists and that is all there is. The combinations possible are very large, but it is a finite number and not infinite.

Third the motion of matter is not random. It was determined at the moment of creation, no matter what cause you give for that moment. If you know all of the ballistics involved for any particle, no matter how small of a particle, you can calculate it's exact location for any point in the past and determine where it will be for any point in the future.

[Malaikah]

lol do athiests check out this science section in first place... :cry: i thought its best place 2 plug it :?

:sl:

I don't think anyone checks this section, atheist or not... it isn't very active.

[lolwatever]

:sl:

I don't think anyone checks this section, atheist or not... it isn't very active.

:sl:

lol better now? :D

:w:

[lolwatever]

There are a few small flaws in the concept of the universe being the result of random infinite combinations over an infinite period of time.

Matter is not infinite. It does have a determined starting point. True it is a large length of time. But, it is still finite and not infinite.

Next there is not an infinite amount of mastter. A finite amount exists and that is all there is. The combinations possible are very large, but it is a finite number and not infinite.

Third the motion of matter is not random. It was determined at the moment of creation, no matter what cause you give for that moment. If you know all of the ballistics involved for any particle, no matter how small of a particle, you can calculate it's exact location for any point in the past and determine where it will be for any point in the future.

:sl:

Yeh so tru unc... but i kinda thoughtits easier proving that their logic is flawd from the very beginning ("given infinite time anything will happen")...

rather than trying to prove that there isnt an infinite amount of matter in the universe.... since pygo n his likes tend to dwell on "you never know, but there could be... we cnat know for sure"

i kinda wonder wat they'd say if someone tries to nock them on the head with a hammer... wat, would they say "could possibly make me feel good an dlaugh, who knows" :enough!:

[lolwatever]

that last sentence... 4got to add... make me laugh.. given infinite time...


:p

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

lol this thread isn't getting anywhere....FAST...given infinite time..lol!

[root]

Heya Guys,

I kinda began to become sleepless after pondering so much about the potential of some of the theories our athiest buddies came up with.... I think it is indeed.... revolutionary..

Such a shame that you have not referenced any of these "theories" to fully understand what you are trying to address. You even failed to reference where you have quoted Pygosceliss in order for us to understand in what context he was referencing.

But then again, it probably helps your case not to.......

Pygosceliss said:

My question is, given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen? :rollseyes Even if they defy all the known laws of physics?

In the above quote for example, it defies all the laws of dynamics, entropy and even simple logic.

How?

Pygo agreed that 2 parallel lines can never intersect given infinite time,

Surely your statement here is misleading. Parallel lines obey "laws" that they may never cross, quoted above you Pygosceliss states Even if they defy all the known laws of physics?, so then if we remove the laws, why is it so impossible for the parallel lines to cross given that it is already conceded that the rules can be broken!

he said:

so why did he conclude that "he knows" a car can be assembled from wreckage given infinite time? And even more so, made a monstrous claim that even a universe like this was destined to come into being. :??

I don't see a problem here, in fact to accept "infinity" is to accept anything is possible and indeed it would be. Take for example mathmatics, and narrow it down to simple numbers. Is it not true that numbers have no beginning and no end? if you was to give me an infinate number then you would fail for I could immediately double the ammount of zero's that you use, don't mess with infinity as you surely will lose any debate. Given an infinite possibility and casting aside known laws then yes "anything can happen".......

Furthermore, according to Pygo, given infinite time, being can be created from non being. i.e. It was inevitable that our universe would come to exist out of nothing given infinite time.

Please define "being" in the context it was originally given.

Don't those ideas directly oppose even the most elementary scientific principles we know of? (law of conservation etc..)

You mean principles with known laws! please keep this in context, as Pygo concluded, the laws can change, your POV is based on laws that are constant. Perhaps an error on your part......

So my question is ... is that the view of an unlearned athiest or does that view resonate in the minds of other atheists as well? Could someone give me analytical proof for such view if it is true?

Proof, what is proof. We know for sure your proof for the sky god you have a beleif in has no proof. we could never even prove if the red you see is the red I see. We can however attach a certain probability to beliefs, but pygo is talking in the realms of infinity where the probability is a certainty. (remember, he also stated any rules could be broken)

Personally i think there's always a cause and effect, being can't come from non being except by a cause. Since Quantum Cosmology tells us that it was a purely unpredictable and not a result of any prior physical event, it indicates that there was a supernatural cause.....

I am glad you think that way, except you totally abandon this way of thinking when it comes to allah, for you see no cause that brought him into existence!!!!!!!!!!! (how convenient)

I'd liek to hear what athiests have to say... and oh yeh, Muslims welcome if they can help trying to solve this mistery :)

I take it Muslims may simply luagh, like most have. But then again perhaps the last luagh is on the ignorance of the sky god believers.

all the best :D

[/QUOTE]

Same to you

[Pygoscelis]

Just noticed this thread. Another troll post by our good friend lolwhatever, full of straw men and ad homs.

I kinda began to become sleepless

Wow really? Glad we have that effect on you. Do try to sleep though. It may improve your attitude.

I did indeed say

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

My question is, given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen? :rollseyes Even if they defy all the known laws of physics?

As root pointed out, those are known laws of physics. Previously "known" laws of physics have been shown to be wrong as we gained more knowledge. Human knowledge is imperfect.

That being said, who claimed that anything and everything could happen? Not I. And not anybody I've read.

In the above quote for example, it defies all the laws of dynamics, entropy and even simple logic.

No it doesn't. I think you simply can't grasp the notion of infinity.

Pygo agreed that 2 parallel lines can never intersect given infinite time.

Indeed. Given what we know, they can not ever intersect.

made a monstrous claim that even a universe like this was destined to come into being. :??

Another straw man being built here. I said no such thing. I did say that given infinite time and the occurence of one universe (thus it being possible for something to come from nothing), it is certain that that small chance would reoccur and we'd get this universe.

Furthermore, according to Pygo, given infinite time, being can be created from non being.

It is fascinating that lolwhatever quoted me directly in the first paragraph but not in these later paragraphs. Could it be that he is building more straw men?

unlearned athiest

Thank you for your adhom.

[I]Personally i think there's always a cause and effect, being can't come from non being except by a cause.

Which brings us nicely back to where THAT thread started and the question of what created God. If everything needs a creator then God does. If God doesn't, then not everything needs a creator.

I don't have the patience to go through that with you again lolwhatever. Maybe Root does.

[lolwatever]

Such a shame that you have not referenced any of these "theories" to fully understand what you are trying to address. You even failed to reference where you have quoted Pygosceliss in order for us to understand in what context he was referencing.

But then again, it probably helps your case not to.......

Heya root :)

my apologies for not referencing, the disagreement about the marble example started from here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post566111

feel free to verify. I also changed the sentence from 'GW.Bush' into 'I'm' to avoid this turning into a political discussion instead of a scientific one.

How?

- In the case of car: Entropy would have decreased over time if it's able to form a car, secondly, suppose the reckage didn't have all the bits of a car, you're assuming given infinite time, the bits necessary could be created out of nothing. Which defies law of conservation.

- In the case of marbles: You simply can't get any imagined pattern happening, take for example possibility of a marble landing on the opposite side of the world, that's physically impossible, there's enough aerodynamic resistance and friction to stop that from happening, let alone physical barriers.

Every single possible combination can be proven to occur analytically using forward/inverse kinematic principles. I assure you it's impossibel to prove that marbles can take the form of a sentence like the one given even if they where thrown from skyscrapers infinitely.

Surely your statement here is misleading. Parallel lines obey "laws" that they may never cross, quoted above you Pygosceliss states Even if they defy all the known laws of physics?, so then if we remove the laws, why is it so impossible for the parallel lines to cross given that it is already conceded that the rules can be broken!

Erm sorry but are you kidding me? This universe is governed by the laws of physics. Given infinite time you won't get parallel lines crossing. Talking about removing the laws isn't science, you've moved intot he realm of speculative metaphysics.

I don't see a problem here, in fact to accept "infinity" is to accept anything is possible and indeed it would be. Take for example mathmatics, and narrow it down to simple numbers. Is it not true that numbers have no beginning and no end? if you was to give me an infinate number then you would fail for I could immediately double the ammount of zero's that you use, don't mess with infinity as you surely will lose any debate. Given an infinite possibility and casting aside known laws then yes "anything can happen".......

That's an insult to mathematics and science!

I'll break the above into smaller chunks:

I don't see a problem here, in fact to accept "infinity" is to accept anything is possible and indeed it would be.

That's a claim, prove it.

It's easier disproving it, here's one: the line y = 1

What's the limit given infinite time? I dare you to tell me it can be another number other than 1 !!! :uuh:

Take for example mathmatics, and narrow it down to simple numbers. Is it not true that numbers have no beginning and no end? if you was to give me an infinate number then you would fail for I could immediately double the ammount of zero's that you use, don't mess with infinity as you surely will lose any debate.

Huh?!?!?! There's no such thing as an infinite number :lol: ! that soooo shows you don't really have an idea what infinity represents in fisrt place.

Maybe if you read my 2nd post you'll get a better idea of infinity.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post615497

It also clearly destroys your point that anything is possible given ifninite time. Just becasue you have infinite number of combinations doesnt mean you can get any combination.

Given an infinite possibility and casting aside known laws then yes "anything can happen".......

I'm sorry that's called speculative metaphysics. Not science. Illitereate people might buy that, but not academics.

Please define "being" in the context it was originally given.

Refer to that first link i plugged. But being jsut refers to 'state of existance', i'm sure you get the point. an example of beign created from non being is our universe for example.

You mean principles with known laws! please keep this in context, as Pygo concluded, the laws can change, your POV is based on laws that are constant. Perhaps an error on your part......

You're missing the point, this isn't a thread about development of physics, i'm not using theories (like evolution) to explain anything (in which case you can say 'hey but its only a theory'), i'm using laws.

If you prefer to stick to metaphysical speculation, i'm afraid this isn't the right thread to be in. I'm asking specific questions which if you want to prove, you need to prove them analytically. Not using mystics.

Funny athiests accuse us of being imaginitve in our belief etc etc.. and when we discuss science, they prefer to stick to imagination rather than using science. Not all athiests i guess... some of them atleast.

Proof, what is proof. We know for sure your proof for the sky god you have a beleif in has no proof. we could never even prove if the red you see is the red I see. We can however attach a certain probability to beliefs, but pygo is talking in the realms of infinity where the probability is a certainty. (remember, he also stated any rules could be broken)

When i say proof, i mean mathematical proof, analytical proof, give me some sort of derivation that given infinite time you get physically defiant happenings. E.g. a marbled thrown infinite times from a skyscraper in NYC can land in shanghai. :thumbs_up

Just like if i made a reasonable claim "a marble could land 50 metres away from a building" i could submit to you a dynamics analysis showing that it's a possibility.

I am glad you think that way, except you totally abandon this way of thinking when it comes to allah, for you see no cause that brought him into existence!!!!!!!!!!! (how convenient)

Feel free to start a thread about that and i'll comment. For now i'll keep it to this "Allah by definition is the creator, he creates being from non being, to say that he was created is a self-contradicting statement, because it means someone else is the creator, not him"

I take it Muslims may simply luagh, like most have. But then again perhaps the last luagh is on the ignorance of the sky god believers.

I'm glad i've studied enough mathematics and physics to have understood principles adn applications of infinity quite well :D enough to see through your imaginitive beliefs atleast.

Same to you

Thanks :)

take care all the best!

[Pygoscelis]

- In the case of car: Entropy would have decreased over time if it's able to form a car, secondly, suppose the reckage didn't have all the bits of a car, you're assuming given infinite time, the bits necessary could be created out of nothing. Which defies law of conservation.

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

Care to build a new straw man?

[lolwatever]

I appreciate root's post... atleast he got to the point. Notice pygo didn't even make any scientific replies. Root tried to.

Just noticed this thread. Another troll post by our good friend lolwhatever, full of straw men and ad homs.

we'll see.

Wow really? Glad we have that effect on you. Do try to sleep though. It may improve your attitude.

still waiting for relevence...

I did indeed say



And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

How do you know that, prove it analytically.

You admitted that given infinite time 2 parallel lines won't intersect. That itself means given infinite time not "anything will happen".

Similarly given infinite time marbles thrown from a skyscraper can land in an infinite number of positions, but infinite over a certain area. e.g. a marble can land at coordinates (3.3,2.00002) or (3.3,2.000000034) but a marble thrown from a skyscraper in NYC won't land in shanghai.

You think its possible? And you think i'm too dumb to understand? Write a whitepaper to a university explaining your point, here's an idea: http://www.eng.unimelb.edu.au/research/postdoc.html

As root pointed out, those are known laws of physics. Previously "known" laws of physics have been shown to be wrong as we gained more knowledge. Human knowledge is imperfect.

So then on what set of laws do you base your claims about infinity on? Speculation and imagination?

You accuse us of imagination and mythology, but what you're saying is just blatant lying!

That being said, who claimed that anything and everything could happen? Not I. And not anybody I've read.

you did.

Here's what you said in this same post :lol: scroll up,

Pygo: "Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty."

No it doesn't. I think you simply can't grasp the notion of infinity.

Maybe i can't that's the point of this thread silly! Shesh, if i'm wrong, PROVE TO ME that this claim is true:

"Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty."

anything i say, i am able to prove it using laws (not theories), everything you've said so far, isn't backed up by a single math textbook, even mythologists would prob hesitate to believe you.

Indeed. Given what we know, they can not ever intersect.

See i just dont getcha, that means you agree you're wrong when you said:

"Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty."

make up your mind man!

Another straw man being built here. I said no such thing. I did say that given infinite time and the occurence of one universe (thus it being possible for something to come from nothing), it is certain that that small chance would reoccur and we'd get this universe.

Based on what logic and deduction or analytical model?

If you doubt the law of conservation, then feel free to do so, but if you're suggesting that we can't use it because it's possibly wrong, then you need to explain why it could possibly be wrong.

As far as i'm concerned, the law of conservation holds in every aspect of this universe, even on the quantum level, therefore being can not come from non being, much less a universe coming out of nothing.

Furthermore, this universe according to latest developments came about due to no prior physical event. If you doubt that, it takes more than just saying "its possibly wrong" to disprove a claim, you need to prove the law of conservation wrong and then come back to us.

It is fascinating that lolwhatever quoted me directly in the first paragraph but not in these later paragraphs. Could it be that he is building more straw men?

The statement:

"Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty."

and

"being can be created from non being given infinite time"

don't contradict each other do they :?

Secondly, lets say you disagree with the second statement that i "inserted into your mouth", so then what do you suspect the cause of the creation of the universe to be :? Keeping in mind that it was not the result of any prior physical event.

Which brings us nicely back to where THAT thread started and the question of what created God. If everything needs a creator then God does. If God doesn't, then not everything needs a creator.

"Allah by definition is the creator, he creates being from non being, to say that he was created is a self-contradicting statement, because it means someone else is the creator, not him"

I don't have the patience to go through that with you again lolwhatever. Maybe Root does.

Then you've shown yourself to be empty, you didnt quote even a signle sceintific source or model to back your claim about infinity up. Probably a good idea to put the load on root and flee.

So far all you've said is "Given infinite time anythign and everything will happen, it's just that you don't understand the notion of infinity"

me: "where's your evidence?"

your: "i know its right, who cares that no mathematician or scientist supports the idea with proof... i just know it"

me: "fine, enjoy your speculativ metaphysics, but this isn't the thread to be in then :D"

[Pygoscelis]

[QUOTE=lolwatever;617859]
Pygo: "Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty."

Indeed. Maybe you're trouble is that english isn't your first language? Unlikely and impossible are not synonyms. And when I say Unlikely event I mean event that is possible but just extremely unlikely. Understand now?

anything i say, i am able to prove it using laws (not theories)

You have proven nothing, as everyone can see plain as day.

If you doubt the law of conservation, then feel free to do so

This is your straw man, not anything I or anybody else has said. Of course the law of conservation COULD be invalid though, we certainly can't rule it out completely.

don't contradict each other do they :?

Now are you just being funny. They don't imply each other either.

what do you suspect the cause of the creation of the universe to be :?

I don't claim to know. Unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers. This is what makes my position so much more comfortable than yours.

"Allah by definition is the creator, he creates being from non being, to say that he was created is a self-contradicting statement, because it means someone else is the creator, not him"

This is nonsense and I suspect you know it. You can't define your way out of this connundrum. And what happened to your much touted law of conservation of mass? You suddenly throwing it out because you now want to make God belief claims?

And just out of idle curiosity, why do you propose that there can not be more than one creator? Maybe Bob created Allah and Allah then created the Universe and all that is in it.

Then you've shown yourself to be empty

Thank you for another ad hom to add to the ever growing collection.

[B]you didnt quote even a signle sceintific source or model to back your claim about infinity

There is no need. It is simple logic. If you understood the concept of infinity you'd undertand the logic. Apparently you don't.

So far all you've said is "Given infinite time anythign and everything will happen, it's just that you don't understand the notion of infinity"

And here is your freshly built strawman. Isn't he cute. Your strawman statement may turn out to be true mind you.

[lolwatever]

^ You havn't substantiated your claim that "given infinite time anything can and will happen"

please prove it.

Otherwise leave this thread in peace.

[Pygoscelis]

No, I have not refuted your straw man. That must annoy you to no end.

As for asking me to leave this thread, maybe you should refrain from starting threads and calling people out (with childish name calling and misquotes) like you did here.

This is a troll thread if I've ever seen one.

[lolwatever]

Straw men? I'm quoting you directly:

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

You yet have to substantiate it. That's point of this thread.

It's not annoying me that you prefer to dodge answers. Just makes you look foolish das all.

:uhwhat

[Pygoscelis]

Reread the opening paragraph of post 20. If you still don't get it, then I don't think there is anything left to say that could help you.

Asking for "proof" of it is like asking for proof that U followed by P spells UP. "Prove it!" You say.

[lolwatever]

Reread the opening paragraph of post 20. If you still don't get it, then I don't think there is anything left to say that could help you.

Asking for "proof" of it is like asking for proof that U followed by P spells UP. "Prove it!" You say.

Stop trying to go off topic. English is my first language. And i do have a scientific background, have completed 100-level mathematics which covers an entire section on understanding the concept of infinity.

I'm making a claim,

the claim is, your statement

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

is false.

Why? Having infinite time just means your extending the time axis to infinity.

Here's how it works, assume y axis represents how effective the laws of physics are. They're always in effect 100% right? today, tomorrow, day after tomororw etc.... modelling this on a graph

you get this:

to say that given infinite time 'anything can and will happen', means that given infinite time, the laws of physics will become irrelevent. Therefore you are saying that this is the case:

I'm asking you to prove that it is indeed the case.



How about we both put away the personal attacks and talk rationally, sorry if i insulted you. Now let's get serious.

[Pygoscelis]

You may argue against your strawman. It is amusing to see you do it. But you don't appear to realize that it is a strawman.

Nobody here has said what you keep telling me I've declared - that "given infinite time anything can happen". Extremely Unlikely and Impossible are not the same thing, as much as you seem to want them to be.

This entire thread is based on strawmen misquotes and misunderstandings. It is ironic that you misunderstand THAT.

[lolwatever]

You may argue against your strawman. It is amusing to see you do it. But you don't appear to realize that it is a strawman.

When i think you're off topic, i tell you that you're off topic and explain why. Claiming that i'm building strawmen or rockmen isn't a solution.

Nobody here has said what you keep telling me I've declared - that "given infinite time anything can happen". Extremely Unlikely and Impossible are not the same thing, as much as you seem to want them to be.

For the 3rd time, i'm quoting you directly:

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

You said that in post 16. And i'm saying that's not true.


Now that i've stablished that you indeed did say that, time to checkout my response to that in post 25.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post617924

and i said sorry. so please, for the sake of solving this problem, enough resorting to personal attacks.

This entire thread is based on strawmen misquotes and misunderstandings. It is ironic that you misunderstand THAT.

I quoted you direclty, where's the misquoting, and post 25 is responding to something you cna't deny you've said. I screenshotted it too.

[lolwatever]

Having established that i didn't misquote Pygo, i'll re-state my analysis of that quote:


----

I'm making a claim,

the claim is, your statement

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

is false.

Why? Having infinite time just means your extending the time axis to infinity.

Here's how it works, assume y axis represents how effective the laws of physics are. They're always in effect 100% right? today, tomorrow, day after tomororw etc.... modelling this on a graph

you get this:

to say that given infinite time 'anything can and will happen', means that given infinite time, the laws of physics will become irrelevent. Therefore you are saying that this is the case:

I'm asking you to prove that it is indeed the case.



How about we both put away the personal attacks and talk rationally, sorry if i insulted you. Now let's get serious.

[Pygoscelis]

This is unbelievable. lol

You just won't let your straw man go.

This is a semantic misreading turned into a debate that you are having with yourself and attempting to attribute to me.

This:

Given infinite time and infinite resources, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

Does not equal this:

'anything can and will happen'

Do you finally understand that?

[lolwatever]

This is unbelievable. lol

You just won't let your straw man go.

This is a semantic misreading turned into a debate that you are having with yourself and attempting to attribute to me.

This:

Given infinite time and infinite resources, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

Does not equal this:

'anything can and will happen'

Do you finally understand that?

ok fine sorry for the misunderstanding, when i said 'anything can and will happen' i'm just referring to the longer quote in short. I'm sorry.

i'll fix that post up immediately now. Thanks for pointing that out :)

[lolwatever]

^^ ok i replaced 'given infinite time anything can happen' with the full quote, here's the rebuttle again:

-------

I'm making a claim,

the claim is, your statement

And I stand by it. I don't even think its a bold claim or anything less than obvious. Given infinite time and infinite resources and infinite time, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty.

is false.

Why? Having infinite time just means your extending the time axis to infinity.

Here's how it works, assume y axis represents how effective the laws of physics are. They're always in effect 100% right? today, tomorrow, day after tomororw etc.... modelling this on a graph

you get this:

to say that "given infinite time and infinite resources, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty" , means that given infinite time, the laws of physics will become irrelevent. Therefore you are saying that this is the case:

I'm asking you to prove that it is indeed the case.



How about we both put away the personal attacks and talk rationally, sorry if i insulted you. Now let's get serious.

[Pygoscelis]

No, you don't understand.

One phrase is not merely shortform for the other. They mean different things, as I tried to point out in post 20. So while I follow and agree with your logic in the one case, it does not flow in the other.

"Extremely Unlikely" is not synonomous with "Impossible". If you disagree, and think that it is, then that is the source of the misunderstanding (that I've been trying to point out).

I did not say that given unlimited time and resources the impossible would happen. I too would find that nonsensical. I said the most unlikely would happen. The difference is key.

to say that "given infinite time and infinite resources, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty" , means that given infinite time, the laws of physics will become irrelevent.

No it doesn't. The probability is just exceptionally small. Given enough tries, every possibility will happen, even the most unlikely one.

So you see, what I was saying ISN'T much of a claim at all. It is a simple fact.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood and went off on this tangent due to it.

[lolwatever]

No, you don't understand.

One phrase is not merely shortform for the other. They mean different things, as I tried to point out in post 20. So while I follow and agree with your logic in the one case, it does not flow in the other.

"Extremely Unlikely" is not synonomous with "Impossible". If you disag+o( ree, and think that it is, then that is the source of the misunderstanding (that I've been trying to point out).

Ofcourse they're not synonomous, but I'm saying it is impossible. You're saying it's possible.

If you think its possible, you need to explain how it could possibly happen (for example, a marble thrown from an NYC skyscraper landing in shanghai).

I'm saying the probability of that happening is zero, it just can't happen.

You're saying the probability is not zero. You need to explain analytically why it isn't zero. :confused:

I did not say that given unlimited time and resources the impossible would happen. I too would find that nonsensical. I said the most unlikely would happen. The difference is key.

So you think a marble thrown from an NYC skyscraper landing in shanghai is a possibility? That's not nonsensical?

And more importantly, do you think that being can be created from non being is a possible event? More so, a universe could possibly come into existance without a prior physical cause?

If the answer is yes, then you need to provide us some analytical proof for either or both those cases.

No it doesn't. The probability is just exceptionally small. Given enough tries, every possibility will happen, even the most unlikely one.

Erm a marble landing in shanghai as a result of someone throwing it from an NYC skyscraper doesn't disobey the laws of physics :?

I'll tell you why it's impossible:

- There's more than enough air resistance to make it lose all its kinetic energy.
- There's far more than enough friction to stop it from travelling a few kilometres, let alone cross country borders.
- There's physical barriers, walls, trees, buildings, objects that will simply make it stop.

So you see, what I was saying ISN'T much of a claim at all. It is a simple fact.

Not yet, but congrats atleast we're beginning to get somewhere.

[sevgi]

i just wanted to say that ur both crazy...:giggling:

no im just kidding.just seems like a bit of a heated "healthy" debate so im breaking in to offer some air time.

please...proceed.dnt mind me.uve accomplished to combine my two most hated and loved subjects together in a fruitful/fruitless argument.that is, physics and philosophy of course.

go on.i will simply applaud ur rebuttles in the privacy of my room and intervene no more.

[lolwatever]

i just wanted to say that ur both crazy...:giggling:

no im just kidding.just seems like a bit of a heated "healthy" debate so im breaking in to offer some air time.

please...proceed.dnt mind me.uve accomplished to combine my two most hated and loved subjects together in a fruitful/fruitless argument.that is, physics and philosophy of course.

go on.i will simply applaud ur rebuttles in the privacy of my room and intervene no more.

:lol: sis! philosophy +o( i hate it tooo :vomit:

physics rocks :shade:

feel free 2 plug ur inputs inshalah! ok bak2topic.

salamz :D

[Pygoscelis]

Now lets quickly debunk the rest of the misunderstandings / strawmen attributed to me by you at the head of this thread.

Please note that this

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

does not equal this

given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen?

Though I do concede that I left out one provision in my quoted statement. The hurricane would have to be of sufficient force to move the parts around and into place. Granted that, no laws of physics are defied. You've only got (again) an extremely unlikely (or even most unlikely) occurence taking place. This WILL happen given infinite time.

Pygo agreed that 2 parallel lines can never intersect given infinite time

Given what we know of the laws of math and physics, this is so, by definition, so yes I agree. It would be impossible for them to cross, not just extremely unlikely, so it won't happen even given infinite time.

made a monstrous claim that even a universe like this was destined to come into being.

This one I don't even remember writing. If I wrote something like this, I doubt I phrased it the way you did. Sounds like another misinterpretation or straw man.

given infinite time, being can be created from non being.

Again, you'll have to provide the actual quote rather than your recollection of it. I don't recall stating anything like it.

Don't those ideas directly oppose even the most elementary scientific principles we know of? (law of conservation etc..)

That we know of, they would seem to, yes. But then again, it is quite possible, indeed likely, that our knowledge isn't perfect.

And I'd put something poofing out of nothing or alwys existing as more likely than an infinitely more complex and wonderful God poofing out of nothing (or always existing).

... is that the view of an unlearned

Here was your first ad hom of the thread. Coupled with the multiple strawmen, it didn't endear me to your plight.

[I]Personally i think there's always a cause and effect, being can't come from non being except by a cause.

Based on our current knowledge, this would seem to be so.

But it still puts the spotlight on your God's Origin problem. That's the elephant in the room. And you seem to be trying to solve it in a way that I simply can not follow. You delcare that the creator of the Universe (Allah in your understanding) could not have been created himself. Why not? Are you not here violating the law of conservation of mass that you tout so strongly through the rest of your posting?

Maybe that would be better to be the subject of another thread, so it isn't mired by all the misunderstandings and strawmen that have mired this thread from inception.

I'll go start that thread now. I would like input from all on the board, and I doubt many are now following this thread (as its turned into another lolwhatever & pygoscelis bickerfest)

Ok I've started that thread. It can be found here

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...eated-god.html

[Pygoscelis]

So you think a marble thrown from an NYC skyscraper landing in shanghai is a possibility? That's not nonsensical?

That does appear to be impossible, yes. But who knows. Maybe it landed on some flying thing that brought it there and then fell of that thiing and landed in Shanghai. Where is this example coming from exactly? And why is any of this relevant to anything of any importance?

You've failed to connect the dots.

This

"given infinite time and infinite resources, even the most unlikely event WILL happen with certainty"

is about marbles doing tricks? In this thread I was only speaking to the phrase itself, as that is all you'd connected.

And more importantly, do you think that being can be created from non being is a possible event? More so, a universe could possibly come into existance without a prior physical cause?

Based on our current understanding of physics, I do not see how it would be possible. Note, that doesn't mean it isn't.

[sevgi]

im sorry for butting in but ive been following the debate and feel as though i need to say something little here.

you said:
"That does appear to be impossible, yes. But who knows. Maybe it landed on some flying thing that brought it there and then fell of that thiing and landed in Shanghai. Where is this example coming from exactly? And why is any of this relevant to anything of any importance?"

when u say this, u need to be very careful.u cant just bring out "some flying thing" into all examples. that way you could invalidate all arguments, rebuttles and examples. that wouldnt be fair now would it?

[Pygoscelis]

Well sumeyye, we're attempting to dismiss all possibility and brand something completely impossible. That's an extreme. Thats the ultimate extreme. So nutty and unlikely things like "flying things coming out of nowhere" do have a role to play (though I agree with you that they seem so unlikely to be hardly worth mentioning).

Oh and I love the "I will rot" above your avatar, that gave me a giggle.

[sevgi]

i question ur mentality...

giggling at rotting...fun deceptive games...lying to kids.....

i think your trying to digest topics that you havent thought up properly.take a while to think.contemplate.ponder.

nothing is impossible.just depends on the power u base everything on.ur an atheist. u base all power behind everything on yourself.everything revolves round u, so a lot of things are impossible...coz ur impotent. ur just flesh that will rot.

we muslims, on the other hand, base the power behind everything on Allah who we believe is all powerful...so to us, nothing is impossible....we we actually accept the fact that we are impoetent and are worthless on our own.

[lolwatever]

Now lets quickly debunk the rest of the misunderstandings / strawmen attributed to me by you at the head of this thread.

Please note that this

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

does not equal this

given infinite time, is it really true that anything and everything could happen?

Though I do concede that I left out one provision in my quoted statement. The hurricane would have to be of sufficient force to move the parts around and into place. Granted that, no laws of physics are defied. You've only got (again) an extremely unlikely (or even most unlikely) occurence taking place. This WILL happen given infinite time.

I can tell you that given infinite time a coin could possibly land on its heads, and i can prove that's true because i can run a simulation and show you that's possible.

You might say its hard to run a sim for hurricane assembling a car, if it was possible, all you need to do is work your way backwards using reverse kinematics. By the law of reversibility, if you're claim is true, then you should be able to prove it. (Source , last point on slide 9)

Ok asking to prove how a car can be constructed might be too hard for you, i'll make it easier, prove to me that a hurricane can even construct a car headlight lol.

Secondly, No laws of physics defied? :eek: law of entropy :? And what do you mean by sufficient force? lol example please.

Given what we know of the laws of math and physics, this is so, by definition, so yes I agree. It would be impossible for them to cross, not just extremely unlikely, so it won't happen even given infinite time.

Good. First you where adament it could happen, now you're (rightly) pulling back.

So basicaly, given infinite time, only physically possible occurrances could possibly happen?

That's what i'm getting at.

coz i got worried when i read trumble's quote:

But it doesn't, given enough time. Eventually you will get "George W Bush is an idiot"... or the formation of complex biochemical systems. When those systems are "right", they hang around, and the whole process begins again building on that new bag of marbles.

^ Source


+o(

This one I don't even remember writing. If I wrote something like this, I doubt I phrased it the way you did. Sounds like another misinterpretation or straw man.

You said:

Given infinite time that either happened prior to the universe coming to be or that the universe has existed, the probability of the universe isn't 0. It is 1 (ie bound to happen).
Link

The point is, if you agree that the universe can't come into being from non being without a cause. Then you need to make a choice between the above statement, or sticking to speculative metaphysics.

Again, you'll have to provide the actual quote rather than your recollection of it. I don't recall stating anything like it.

It was trumble who said it actually,

Secondly, we have absolutely no idea how many times the cosmic dice were thrown, and are still being thrown. Over a period of time anything and (if sufficiently long) everything, will happen.

Link

He had your blessings back in that thread.. dunno if u still wanna keep up with it seeing that you agree that physics defiant results can't happen given infinite time :rollseyes

That we know of, they would seem to, yes. But then again, it is quite possible, indeed likely, that our knowledge isn't perfect.

I'll phrase it in simpler terms, if it's a result that defies the "actual laws" of physics (seeing that you doubt the ones we know of), it just won't happen, right?

And I'd put something poofing out of nothing or alwys existing as more likely than an infinitely more complex and wonderful God poofing out of nothing (or always existing).

well you seem to think it's possible that this universe poofed out of nothing... worsemore... without a creator. :uuh:

Based on our current knowledge, this would seem to be so.

But it still puts the spotlight on your God's Origin problem. That's the elephant in the room. And you seem to be trying to solve it in a way that I simply can not follow. You delcare that the creator of the Universe (Allah in your understanding) could not have been created himself. Why not? Are you not here violating the law of conservation of mass that you tout so strongly through the rest of your posting?

Maybe that would be better to be the subject of another thread, so it isn't mired by all the misunderstandings and strawmen that have mired this thread from inception.

I'll go start that thread now. I would like input from all on the board, and I doubt many are now following this thread (as its turned into another lolwhatever & pygoscelis bickerfest)

Ok I've started that thread. It can be found here

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...eated-god.html

ok we'll discuss that there.


so before i close, you are saying:

"I agree that physics-defiant events can not happen given infinite time"

and you also agree with the analysis given in post 4?

where physics here is defined as the 'actual laws' that govern the universe, regardless whether we know them or not.

If you do agree, then root is the remaining disagreeing candidate (i think).

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry for being blunt, but Pygoscelis and Lolwhatever you have both been fooled by the illusive terms: "chance" and "likely" and "unlikely"

No it doesn't. The probability is just exceptionally small. Given enough tries, every possibility will happen, even the most unlikely one.

This is an impossible debate. There are to many uncertain factors to make the claim that you make here.

What is chance?
First of all we need to establish what is an "unlikely process" and why is it unlikely? When we win the lottery we call it luck, we can even calculate the chance of winning mathematically. But in the end, the numbers are not decided by luck nor by mathematical chance-calculations. There is no such thing as chance here, the balls with the numbers simply follow linear laws of physics. If we would be talking about electrons that would be a whole different thing. But as far as the balls go, their movement just follows simple laws that do not have a chance-factor. However these movements does become to complex to calculate the outcome in advance. This because there are to many of them and because we do not know the startingposition of the balls or the length of time that the balls will be shaken around,... etc. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to consider all the factors that play a decisive role in it. However since they follow a certain mechanics that means that when they start from a certain position and spin for a certain time then one and only one outcome can and will be the result. If on monday 1st februari 2007 the outcome of the lottery was 1;2;3;4;5;6 then it was like that for a reason (= a certain starting position, a certain length of time, perhaps even factors like humidity or the atmospheric pressure inside the big bowl could play a role). And that means that if I were to say on the 31st december of 2006: "1;2;3;4;5;7" is an unlikely outcome for tomorrow" then I would have been wrong. Because for that day it wasn't an unlikely outcome, but rather it was an impossible outcome. Only the combination 1;2;3;4;5;6 is a possible outcome for februari the first of 2007. We need to understand chance is a fictional term in reality all these things do not happen because of the chance of happening. Things happen for various reasons. Chance calculations predict the likeliness. They do not predict reality.

How does time influence chance?
It is often suggested that the more times you play the odds the higher your chance becomes of winning. That is inaccurate. When you pick a single card out of a 52-card deck the chance of taking the ace of hearts is 1/52. If you then take a second and third card the chances go up, and if you take all the cards then eventually you will definetly get the ace of hearts. Because then your chances are then 52/52=1 as you take every single card out of the deck.
But if after taking a card you put it back in the deck and shuffle; then doing this 52 times in a row will not give you a 52/52 chance ratio. Everytime you put the card back and shuffle you have to restart your calculations. And the previous pull has no bearing on the consecutive pull. (i.e. if you didn't pull the ace last time that will not influence the chance of pulling it in the following attempt). Theoretically speaking it is possible (although highly unlikely) to pull the ace of spades instead of the ace of hearts for infinite tries. So just repeating a process infinite times does not guarantee a certain outcome even in math. Next to that we see that reality does not always follow our calculated chances. This is because -as previously mentioned- the outcome is not determined "because" of the chance of it to happen but rather by different criteria.
To better understand that phenomenon, let's go back to the lottery example. What are the chances of getting the outcome: 1;2;3;4;5;6 if there are 50 consecutively numbered balls in the lottery? Well as I earlier explained the outcome is the result of physics, and the determinening factors here will be the starting position of the balls and the lenght of time that they get shaken around. If we assume that the outcome 1;2;3;4;5;6 is only possible if those number are on top and they are shaken for 1minute flat. (I know that doesn't sound accurate but for the sake of simplicity). Now lets say that the balls are always shaken for one minute and a half, then in this assumption it is impossible to ever get the outcome 1;2;3;4;5;6. Or if the balls are poured in numerally (starting with 1 and going up to 50) then the first six would always be on the bottom and again given our assumed criteria the outcome 1;2;3;4;5;6 becomes impossible even over infinite time. So how does time influence the outcome of an event? It doesn't!

Conclusion:
Although playing the odds more will give you better luck we need to understand that luck is a fictive term and that it doesn't influence our outcome, and that hence time also doesn't influence our outcome. To make this clear I usually use the following example:
It is impossible for a human to run 100m in 5 sec.
If one tries to run a stretch of 100m on a 200m-course, or on a 1000m course, he will not be able to run that 100m in 5sec. Obviously the total length of the track has no influence on the performance of the runner who only runs part of the track. In a similar way the total amount of time in which a certain process can take place will not influence the outcome of that process.

Also this shows that terms as "likely" "unlikely" have no realistic meaning in physics. so the whole discussion follows from a bad example by calling the car in the tornado "unlikely". It is either possible or impossible. If it is impossible then it will not happen even in infinite time, you both seem to agree on that. But if it is possible then it will happen in infinite time only if the right circumstances are present for this possibility. Whether or not these circumstances will be present is impossible for us to tell. that is why we tend to refer to chance. Just remember chance isn't referring to reality.

So, will every possibility will happen, even the most unlikely one, given enough tries?
Answer: Possible, but not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.

[Pygoscelis]

so to us, nothing is impossible

That would put you squarely as adopting lolwhatevers strawman. If you believe nothing is impossible you believe that these two parralel lines MAY intersect.

....we we actually accept the fact that we are impoetent and are worthless on our own.

That is one of the saddest things I've read in a while. :-[

[Pygoscelis]

But if it is possible then it will happen in infinite time only if the right circumstances are present for this possibility.

And if the conditions are not present how is that any different from it being impossible? Either it is possible or it is not possible. If it is possible then given infinite time it WILL happen.

It is true that with each successive throw of the dice you do not become more and more likely to get a predicted outcome. But you are less likely to get that outcome one in x throws of the dice than one in x+1 throws of the dice.

If you are at the casino and somebody offers you to pull the slot machine twice or four times for a dollar, which do you choose?

[Chuck]

Now if that hurricane was going for infinity and had an infinite supply of all the bits of car that needed to be assembled to make one, then yes, I would believe it. In fact I'd know it to be so.

Thats good to know, 'cuz I need a hurricane to make me one Bugatti Veyron :giggling:

[Pygoscelis]

And what do you mean by sufficient force?

Enough force to push the given pieces into place. And note I did say you'd require a limitless supply of the parts needed.

Good. First you where adament it could happen, now you're (rightly) pulling back.

Please stop building straw men. It is getting tiresome. I have never claimed that two parralel lines would interset given infinite time.

So basicaly, given infinite time, only physically possible occurrances could possibly happen?

Given what we know of the way the universe works that would be obvious.

Trumble's quote sent you off on a tangent. You seem to have missed the point he was meaning to make. He was stating that given an unlikely event coming to fruition that condition would be likely to stick, to remain, rather than to change again because that condition is reinforced. His example of the marbles was just an example, no different than rolling a 60000 sided die and it coming up with a particular number.

The point is, if you agree that the universe can't come into being from non being without a cause.

I see your point here but it is really hard to say. It is more likely to have come into being on its own or have always existed than an infinitely more complex and intelligent being coming into being on its own or always having existed.

It was trumble who said it actually,

Well maybe you shouldn't misatribute quotes, especially when doing so in a provocative and haughty way. Can you see now why your straw men are annoying? And maybe Trumble would have participated in this thread had you called out the right person lol.

I'll phrase it in simpler terms, if it's a result that defies the "actual laws" of physics (seeing that you doubt the ones we know of), it just won't happen, right?

Further given that such laws indeed exist and that they are constant (wouldn't it throw a monky wrench into things if they are not), I can agree with you.

Mind you, I am very resitant to declare ANYTHING as IMPOSSIBLE. For that is such an extreme.

[Abdul Fattah]

And if the conditions are not present how is that any different from it being impossible? Either it is possible or it is not possible. If it is possible then given infinite time it WILL happen.

Well that was the whole point of my post, namely that this is a misinterpretation of chance and unlikelyness. What I meant with the sentence you quoted was that the criteria aren't always known, and thus we come up with probabilities based on our educated guesses. So thats why I said: "possible only if". But as you said the whole notion of likelyness and possibility has nothing to do with it. However after rightfully pointing that out, you fall for the same mistake again by saying:

If it is possible then given infinite time it WILL happen.

So you suggest first that it is a possibility (as opposed to a certainty). And then you assert that the possibility suddenly becomes certainty as a result of throwing in infinite time. But time has nothing to do with it. it's all causality. Either it happens because the criteria are set like that or it doesn't because the criteria aren't met. Time has nothing to do with it.

It is true that with each successive throw of the dice you do not become more and more likely to get a predicted outcome.

Agreed

But you are less likely to get that outcome one in x throws of the dice than one in x+1 throws of the dice.

No, that's wrong. The number of times you conduct a test should not influence the outcome. The roll of the dice is decided by the starting position in the hand, the force and direction of the throw, the curving of the edges, the smoothness of the surface on which it's thrown, objects in it's path, and so on...
Throwing it once, ten times, or infinitly makes no difference. The only thing is the more times you do it. Eventually those criteria will change (one will eventually hold the dice differently, and start throwing with different force etc... )
But the number of times, even if it's infinite gives no garuantee that each outcome will turn up. Even if we are inclined to think that those criteria are easely met. To assert with absolute certainty, we should look at the causality of those criteria. For example what will determine how the subject holds the dice. What psychological effects will determine the force by which he throws and so on. We can't just assume that the factor infinite will guarantee that at some point the right combination will be given.

If you are at the casino and somebody offers you to pull the slot machine twice or four times for a dollar, which do you choose?

Well first of I'd recline since gambling is haram. But aside from that I would choose to do it four times because then I can try the result of four different criteria. (for example beginning positions of the slots) However this does not mean I have a higher chance. As far as the mathemetics of chance calculation concern they state that each time you start over chance calculations need to start over again.

[Pygoscelis]

Well first of I'd recline since gambling is haram.

lol good point. I chose my example poorly.

But aside from that I would choose to do it four times because then I can try the result of four different criteria. (for example beginning positions of the slots) However this does not mean I have a higher chance. As far as the mathemetics of chance calculation concern they state that each time you start over chance calculations need to start over again.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

If you throw the dice over and over and over and over eventually you are going to roll snakeyes (assuming the dice have ones on them). It will happen, eventually, even if these are 100 sided dice. You disagree?

[Pygoscelis]

ok we'll discuss that there.

Well they closed that thread in an awful big hurry. lol. Seems it isn't a comfortable subject around here.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

i like how this thread is going, a civil debate :)
its interesting reading it all...neways just thought id say it. yall r too smart for me :p

[Abdul Fattah]

If you throw the dice over and over and over and over eventually you are going to roll snakeyes (assuming the dice have ones on them). It will happen, eventually, even if these are 100 sided dice. You disagree?

Yes I disagree, there is not enough certainty to assert that it will happen.
It is probable, but we simply cannot say based on the limited information the hypothetical situation gives.
However I understand your inclination. We tend to think that eventually it will happen based on the false assumption that all outcomes have an equal possibility of happening and the choice of those equal possibilities is a matter of chance. But that is inaccurate. In reality there is no such things as equal possibilities. As I explained in the previous lottery-example a given throw of the dice has only a single possible outcome (actually "certain" is a better word here rather then "possible"). The same could be said for every single throw, and so we see the outcome is not determined by luck but rather by causality. So the real question here is how will the test-subject perform here? Will he throw the dice with the same strength every single time? Will he hold the dice in the same starting-position every time? Or will he try out different combinations of starting-positions and forces? Or perhaps he will not take notice of these details? All these things are not really helping our discussion, but are instead only making it complexer so let me try to explain my point in a more general way:

If there are a number of changeable factors (=method of throwing) that can influence the outcome of an experiment (= the throw of a dice); then doing the experiment infinite times does not guarantee that the conductor will try out every possible combinations of variables for those different factors. So If you want to reach every single outcome, then you will have to throw the 100-sided dice in at least 100 different ways. It is possible that the conductor of the test never tries a certain combination even though he tries infinite times. Strictly theoretical; it is even possible that the conductor uses exactly the same set of factors for every single throw and hence the dice gives the same result infinite times.

So in conclusion, we can not use mathematical chance calculations to assert that every single possibility will happen. This because by doing so we have assumed that the theoretical possibilities (=the dice could land on any side) are also factual. But causality does not leave room for only one outcome, and all those other "possibilities" were only possible in our imagination, but were never real possibilities.

[lolwatever]

That would put you squarely as adopting lolwhatevers strawman. If you believe nothing is impossible you believe that these two parralel lines MAY intersect.

erm hold on, i'm saying it is impossible. That's the point of this thread.

Enough force to push the given pieces into place. And note I did say you'd require a limitless supply of the parts needed.



Please stop building straw men. It is getting tiresome. I have never claimed that two parralel lines would interset given infinite time.

lol that so sounds unscientific, i'll explain why, suppose i want to kick a ball into the goals, just because it requires 200N force doesn't mean it'll endup in the goals if i do supply it that force! in the case of hurricane, it's more than just a matter of supplying force, it just goes against entropy to end up from a load of crumbles into a car.

and again, just because you have infinite supply of material doesn't mean you get an infinite array of arrangements in the sense that you get combinations that defy physical laws.

so when you said:

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

Link

it shows that there's a lack of understanding.

What's the difference between having the parts of the car in the form of rims, axle, radiator, window, steering wheel etc... or having them all ground to fine dust? You still have the necessary ingredients to form a car in either of those cases.

And why teh requirement of them being there in infinite supply :? That doesn't change the fact that if its physically impossible (e.g. if it defies laws of thermodynamics) then it simply won't happen whether the parts are in infinite supply or not.

Hence when you said

"will happen given infinite time."

gives the impression taht even physically impossible occurrances seem to be possible in your thought.

That's why i'm asking you a simple question...

do you agree with:
"I agree that physics-defiant events can not happen given infinite time"

due to the analysis given in post 4.

Where we define 'physics' to be the 'actual laws' that govern the universe.

?

Given what we know of the way the universe works that would be obvious.

Ok, so why the insistance with "will happen given infinite time." Now you're falling back on that claim?

That's what im trying to get down to.

Trumble's quote sent you off on a tangent. You seem to have missed the point he was meaning to make. He was stating that given an unlikely event coming to fruition that condition would be likely to stick, to remain, rather than to change again because that condition is reinforced. His example of the marbles was just an example, no different than rolling a 60000 sided die and it coming up with a particular number.

No, here's what he said:

But it doesn't, given enough time. Eventually you will get "George W Bush is an idiot"... or the formation of complex biochemical systems. When those systems are "right", they hang around, and the whole process begins again building on that new bag of marbles.

There's a diff between saying those events "could occur if they where physically possible". And saying "eventually you will" The latter implies that you disagree with yourself, the former implies that you are answering yes to the question "So basicaly, given infinite time, only physically possible occurrances could possibly happen? "


get it? :?

I see your point here but it is really hard to say. It is more likely to have come into being on its own or have always existed than an infinitely more complex and intelligent being coming into being on its own or always having existed.

ok so that means you disagree with the premise

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause." ?

As for the universe having alway existed, that's pure speculation. If it was true, we would be in a heat-death state (i.e. we wouldn't be here). Source

I'm afraid teh logic of 'but u can never know' doesnt hold in academic circles, you may have an excuse to use that phrase if we're talking about theories, but its incorrect to say that when it comes to laws (hence why there's so few physics laws that exists)... might wanna read about what the definition of a law is. Link

And maybe Trumble would have participated in this thread had you called out the right person lol.

I did invite him and he's kindly accepted to participate when he's ready.

Further given that such laws indeed exist and that they are constant (wouldn't it throw a monky wrench into things if they are not), I can agree with you.

Ok so one final thing, now.. that implies you retract you retract the word 'will' from

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

as well as

But it doesn't, given enough time. Eventually you will get "George W Bush is an idiot"... or the formation of complex biochemical systems. When those systems are "right", they hang around, and the whole process begins again building on that new bag of marbles.

Mind you, I am very resitant to declare ANYTHING as IMPOSSIBLE. For that is such an extreme.

After you read taht definition of a 'Law' in the link i gave, i think you'd agree that creating matter out of nothing is indeed an impossibility.

Physicists agree with me on that :)

[lolwatever]

Well they closed that thread in an awful big hurry. lol. Seems it isn't a comfortable subject around here.

hmm well alpha put the offer for you to reply if you disagree with my definition and consequent answer. I think they just want to save the thread from becoming 30 pages of personal attacks...

however... if we come to a conclusion here... i'm more than happy to edit the first post and give opportunity for this thread to go in a new direction. :)

take care all the best

[Pygoscelis]

erm hold on, i'm saying it is impossible. That's the point of this thread.

Yes I know. And your straw man was the opposite.

A straw man argument is an argument somebody creates secifically to argue against, and then often tries to attribute the argued against argument to somebody else.

Ok, so why the insistance with "will happen given infinite time.

It comes down to whether something is outright impossible or just very unlikely (so unlikely to be thought impossible). If the latter given infinite time I believe it certain to happen. If the former, then no I agree it will not happen.

Getting bogged won in car parts in tornados or marbles falling is getting bogged down in examples and is beside the point that I was making and beside the point that I believe Trumble was making as well.

There's a diff between saying those events "could occur if they where physically possible". And saying "eventually you will" The latter implies that you disagree with yourself, the former implies that you are answering yes to the question "So basicaly, given infinite time, only physically possible occurrances could possibly happen? "

Well to simplify things, I am saying that given infinite time if it could occur it will occur. I can not and will not speak for Trumble on what he means. We'll see if he joins the conversation.

As for the universe having alway existed, that's pure speculation.

Yes. This all is.

I'm afraid teh logic of 'but u can never know' doesnt hold in academic circles, you may have an excuse to use that phrase if we're talking about theories, but its incorrect to say that when it comes to laws (hence why there's so few physics laws that exists)... might wanna read about what the definition of a law is. Link

What are laws if not well tested and universally accepted theories? Do you really believe that none of what we consider "laws" today will ever be proven wrong, incomplete or with exception?

After you read taht definition of a 'Law' in the link i gave, i think you'd agree that creating matter out of nothing is indeed an impossibility.

Physicists agree with me on that :)

I am hesitant to brand anything impossible. Most physicists I know and most I have read are likewise hesitant.

[Pygoscelis]

hmm well alpha put the offer for you to reply if you disagree with my definition and consequent answer. I think they just want to save the thread from becoming 30 pages of personal attacks...

however... if we come to a conclusion here... i'm more than happy to edit the first post and give opportunity for this thread to go in a new direction. :)

take care all the best

That wasn't the vibe I got whatsoever.

I thought that the thread was going quite well, with many contributors, far more than average. And I suspect far more individual views would have been added if it hadn't been closed. I did not see a single personal attack in any of the posts. Not a one.

The only hint at why the thread was closed was the fellow who posted something to the effect of "CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW" as if the very subject matter of the thread threatened them in some way, and Cheese's post about it being forbiden for Muslims to think about the question.

But its really hard to reconcile what is being said in this thread with that thread's topic. In this thread we have the non-believers actaually defending unlikely events being possible, and the believers being skeptics. It is a complete role reversal from normal, where it is theists who are making their fantastic claims and claiming them not only possible but fact.

[Pygoscelis]

But causality does not leave room for only one outcome, and all those other "possibilities" were only possible in our imagination, but were never real possibilities.

Ok I understand. Point well taken.

But what if we ARE talking about true possibilities? Ie, the dice are not being thrown over and over in exactly the same way with exactly the same forces in axactly the same configuration every time.

I see that you are correct that it will turn out the same each time if all these forces are not random, or variant, but that is rarely the case. If we get person A to throw the dice 100 times, he isn't going to do so in exactly the same way each time and the physical forces around him will likely change as well. Rolling dice is NOT a perfectly random event, true, but it is pretty close. And I would still wager heavily that if we keep having person A throw those dice he will eventually throw snakeyes.

[lolwatever]

Ok, so why the insistance with "will happen given infinite time.

It comes down to whether something is outright impossible or just very unlikely (so unlikely to be thought impossible). If the latter given infinite time I believe it certain to happen. If the former, then no I agree it will not happen.

So then you're admitting your insistance is wrong if it's physically impossible?

It's a simple question. That requires a simple answer.

Getting bogged won in car parts in tornados or marbles falling is getting bogged down in examples and is beside the point that I was making and beside the point that I believe Trumble was making as well.

Well just like the way you made a big fuss about me rephrasing what you said, i'm going to make sure you come to terms with your (very bold) statement

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

and your support for the crazier idea:

But it doesn't, given enough time. Eventually you will get "George W Bush is an idiot"... or the formation of complex biochemical systems. When those systems are "right", they hang around, and the whole process begins again building on that new bag of marbles.

I dont care what the point you where trying to make is, fact is, if you want to make a point, you need to be clear about it.

Well to simplify things, I am saying that given infinite time if it could occur it will occur. I can not and will not speak for Trumble on what he means. We'll see if he joins the conversation.

Good. So your support for that quote has vanished. We're getting somewhere now.

Yes. This all is.

Your speculation is metaphysical. My thoughts are substantiated by emperics, yours wheren't.

What are laws if not well tested and universally accepted theories? Do you really believe that none of what we consider "laws" today will ever be proven wrong, incomplete or with exception?

Read that definition of a law i gave you and you can answer that for yourself. Laws are laws, A Law of Nature is, by definition, something which holds true in all cases, no matter how hard you look, no matter what precision you use and no matter where in the universe you go. It doesn't mean "It works like this in some cases if you don't look too hard, if you don't look in too many places and if you don't look too closely."

This discussion isn't about what laws are, point is that it's not a solution to hide behind metaphysical speculation when we're talking science. We don't believe in metaphysical speculation because such speculation can not be substantiated. And that's reasonable.

---

off topic replies:

I am hesitant to brand anything impossible. Most physicists I know and most I have read are likewise hesitant.

I'm surprised the physicists you happen to know haven't explained to you that the examples you quote are simply... propostorous. :X Sure they're physicists?

Yes I know. And your straw man was the opposite.

A straw man argument is an argument somebody creates secifically to argue against, and then often tries to attribute the argued against argument to somebody else.

Oh god, get over it, the only misattributed quote was the Trumble one and i said sorry! And you where very partial to his ideas. Especially when you said:

"If you mean it will be more likely to fall in a pattern we dont recognize than one we do, then sure, but only because there are more patterns we don't recognize than we do." Link

Now you seem to have relinquished all support for his quote. That's good.

but please quit this attempt to turn this into bunch of sissy attacks.

stick to aiming to quit imaginitive science and metaphysical speculation. Please.

Thanks,
take care all the best.

[lolwatever]

That wasn't the vibe I got whatsoever.
The only hint at why the thread was closed was the fellow who posted something to the effect of "CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW" as if the very subject matter of the thread threatened them in some way, and Cheese's post about it being forbiden for Muslims to think about the question.

But its really hard to reconcile what is being said in this thread with that thread's topic. In this thread we have the non-believers actaually defending unlikely events being possible, and the believers being skeptics. It is a complete role reversal from normal, where it is theists who are making their fantastic claims and claiming them not only possible but fact.

Unlikely events are possible. But physically impossible events are not possible.

E.g. the examples you and Trumble gave.

By your own saying:

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

means that a hurricane will form a car under your conditions regardless whether its physically possible or not :rollseyes

So its you that's not on par with reality. Not us.

all the best


ps: where did cheese say it sforbidden to think about such issues :? She sure didn't mean that.

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok I understand. Point well taken.

But what if we ARE talking about true possibilities? Ie, the dice are not being thrown over and over in exactly the same way with exactly the same forces in axactly the same configuration every time.

So what you're saying now is: "What if we manipulate those factors so that we try the different combinations." If we are good in changing those factors (make sure that all combinations are tried); then yes. Then we would eventually get the desired outcome. But that will not be due to the factor "infinite time". What we are doing then is just trying out all the combinations until we find the right combination that gives us the desired effect. We are no longer discussing the effect of infinity on randomness. Let alone, our process is no longer the least random.

I see that you are correct that it will turn out the same each time if all these forces are not random, or variant, but that is rarely the case. If we get person A to throw the dice 100 times, he isn't going to do so in exactly the same way each time and the physical forces around him will likely change as well. Rolling dice is NOT a perfectly random event, true, but it is pretty close.

Close or not close they are not random, these are all events that follow causality without any random-factor involved. You're right to say that a person will not throw the same way, but the point here is that he will throw a certain way because of a reason. Whether it is the same throw or a different one. The point is it's a link in the chain of causality, there is no randomness involved. We call it random when we fail to predict the outcome by the physics behind it, but rest assure there is physics behind it that determines the outcome.

And I would still wager heavily that if we keep having person A throw those dice he will eventually throw snakeyes.

Yes, but that is because the combination of criteria are easily met. It has nothing to do with infinity. I know a guy that can throw double sixes up to 5 times in a row (trust me you do not want to play backgammon against him). Does that mean he defies the laws of mathematics? No, he just has a good insight in the physics that influence the roll of the dice.

Basic line, even if a process would actually be random by nature rather then governed by physical laws (And I personally doubt that such a thing exists within our universe) even then, just doing the process infinite times does not guarantee that each outcome actually happens. Let's talk about a hypothetical machine that generates a random number from 1 to 100 each time I turn it on. In reality when a program generates a random number it is not random, and the outcome of the program will be determined by factors such as: how long does the program run to find the random number, how fast is the processing unit of the computer on which the program runs and so on. But for the sake of argument let's assume that we are truly speaking of a random number generator and that there is no physics and causality involved.
Now if it is truly random that means that by defenition I have an equal chance of 1/100 to getting each possible outcome every time I turn it on. Let's say the first time I turn it on it gives me the number 25. I turn it off and turn it on again. The second time since it is still a random number generator I should still have a 1/100 chance to get each number. So it is equally probable to get the number 25 again as it is probable to get any other number! If I turn on the machine an infinite amount of times, each time I turn it on I should have a chance of 1/100 to get the number 25. If you reply that it is improbable to have the same number a consecutive set of times then I will argue that your number generator is not truly random and becomes less random each time you turn it on and off. Because the only way we can make assertions about consecutive outcomes is when one process has a bearing one the next, which shouldn't be the case for our hypothetical random number generator. So if we turn this hypotetical number generator on and off infinite times; it is equally possible that it will eventually produce the number 78 as it is possible that it will actually never create the number 78. By defenition both have to be possible, otherwise our generator is not truly random.

[lolwatever]

So what you're saying now is: "What if we manipulate those factors so that we try the different combinations." If we are good in changing those factors (make sure that all combinations are tried); then yes. Then we would eventually get the desired outcome. But that will not be due to the factor "infinite time". What we are doing then is just trying out all the combinations until we find the right combination that gives us the desired effect. We are no longer discussing the effect of infinity on randomness. And our process is not the least random.

Mashalah well put bro :thumbs_up

Similarly, We're noticing that Pygo is beginning to add more and more conditions to that hurricane example.... first it was just 'given infinite time and infinite supply of parts'... then it was 'given the right force'... next we're gonna see 'given the right kinematic setup' lol... and who knows, eventually... given that it happened then its possible :?

[Abdul Fattah]

Yeah about the hurricane example I didn't want to go into it because I'm unaware of the assumed conditions of the hypothesis. But I'm inclined to think of it as impossible (just like the parallel line) based on the argument that assembling a car takes more then collision of parts by brute force. Some parts need to be screwed on, some parts glued, some parts delicately inserted. it seems to me that performing these actions are not within the capabilities of an average hurricane.

[lolwatever]

Yeah about the hurricane example I didn't want to go into it because I'm unaware of the assumed conditions of the hypothesis. But I'm inclined to think of it as impossible (just like the parallel line) based on the argument that assembling a car takes more then collision of parts by brute force. Some parts need to be screwed on, some parts glued, some parts delicately inserted. it seems to me that performing these actions are not within the capabilities of an average hurricane.

Actually bro, if it was possible its indeed possible to prove it is analytically...

all he had to show was that it doesn't defy the law of entropy. I.e. show us that the entropy of a hurricane-car system would increase if a hurricane assembles a car out of wreckage.

all Pygo had to show was that by the law of reversibility it can happen. or just plug it in a simulation software (like havok reactor) and upload a video clip showing us the process.

:w: :)

[Abdul Fattah]

LOL you seem to be implying that that wouldn't take a lot of work

[lolwatever]

LOL you seem to be implying that that wouldn't take a lot of work

i'm not that evil lol ;D

i do alot of simulation work myself... i'm not asking him to simulate a hurricane constructing a full car... the sim would take too long (couple centuries probably)

All i asked him was to prove that a hurricane could even construct a car headlight lol.... the neat thing about simulation is that you dont hav to wait for infinity, coz you literally setup the outcome you trying to achieve, and the simulation system will tell you if that's possible or not :)

But now he seems to be hesitating in his support for that statement he made about it being an inevitability... we'll wait and see.
:w:

[lolwatever]

and btw, easier still... he just has to prove to us that the hurricane-car system is more stable when it's thrashing around compared to when the hurricane finished doing its job (that is, constructing the care).

[Woodrow]

Sometimes when you carry an arguement to an extreme and the extreme is totaly unplausable, it tends to reduce the basic arguement to fooliishness.

Now let us take the concept of if something is possible it will happen if given sufficient time:

go to the old story of an infinite number of monkeys randomly pounding on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite number of years. One possibility is they will duplicate every bit of literature ever written. But, another possibility is they will randomly hit the same key every time and instead of reproducing all the literature, they will only produce an infinite numbers of sheets of paper covered with the letter a.

Either conclusion is possible. However if either one does happen, it will eliminate the possibility of the other.

[Pygoscelis]

So then you're admitting your insistance is wrong if it's physically impossible?

Sure. That isn't really saying much at all. If it is impossible it is impossible.

I dont care what the point you where trying to make is

So you are just trolling then? Plain and simple? What a waste of time.

Read that definition of a law i gave you and you can answer that for yourself. Laws are laws, A Law of Nature is, by definition, something which holds true in all cases, no matter how hard you look, no matter what precision you use and no matter where in the universe you go.

If you insist on using that definition you are going to run into trouble, as some of accepted laws of physics are thought to break down in specific situations such as in black holes etc.

And no physicist worth his salt would ever claim to know a "law" that is beyond contention. NOTHING in science is beyond contention. Our knowledge isn't perfect. That is the whole point of science.

Oh god, get over it, the only misattributed quote was the Trumble one and i said sorry! And you where very partial to his ideas.

As shown in an earlier response, almost everything you attributed to me was a misatribution. Indeed just a couple posts up you continued to create straw men. You need to be careful about doing that.

Especially when you said:
"If you mean it will be more likely to fall in a pattern we dont recognize than one we do, then sure, but only because there are more patterns we don't recognize than we do."

And that isn't so? Isn't that obviously so?

but please quit this attempt to turn this into bunch of sissy attacks.

More ad homs. I thought you'd resolved to stop that childishness.

This has again become tiresome. And it was looking almost civil and rational there for a moment.

Maybe Root will return or maybe Trumble will jump into this thread and they'll have something interesting to say, but as it is now, its going nowhere. You've now admitted you're just trolling. So what is the point? Moving on.

[Abdul Fattah]

Maybe Root will return or maybe Trumble will jump into this thread and they'll have something interesting to say, but as it is now, its going nowhere. You've now admitted you're just trolling. So what is the point? Moving on.

Euhm... did you overlook my post by any chance? :D
I tried so hard on that one :(

[sevgi]

i said it yesterday and i'll say it agen...pygo, lolwateva..ur both crazy...

can u guys just call it even and maybe discuss rational topics that actually get somewhere. its been two days.and what have u guys learnt???

(im kidding about the crazy thing. ur both very good debaters but u both dnt have the neutrality to make it a productive debate,...

can someone close this thread...

ps: sorry steve.:)

[Pygoscelis]

steve, I must say it is refreshing to have some actual intelligent conversation in this thread. You make a very good point about causality and the concept of randomness.

It could be argued (and maybe you are) that NOTHING is random. That random simply does not exist. All random number generators require a seed. All events that seem random have physical factors that made them happen the way they did. Randomness is perception and prediction. I can agree with that.

even if a process would actually be random by nature rather then governed by physical laws (And I personally doubt that such a thing exists within our universe) even then, just doing the process infinite times does not guarantee that each outcome actually happens.

Here I disagree.

If I turn on the machine an infinite amount of times, each time I turn it on I should have a chance of 1/100 to get the number 25.

Agreed.

So if we turn this hypotetical number generator on and off infinite times; it is equally possible that it will eventually produce the number 78 as it is possible that it will actually never create the number 78.

No. Given that this is a true random number generator, I disagree here. First because of the point of time from which we are predicting. Second because of the meaning of infinity. Infinity never ends. Eventually the number will come up.

[Pygoscelis]

Euhm... did you overlook my post by any chance? :D
I tried so hard on that one :(

lol Sorry! I was posting my response to you as you wrote that. :blind:

[sevgi]

steve im warning u!!!

ull never get out!!!;D :giggling: :p

[lolwatever]

Here's the point i'm making:

By your own saying:


Quote:
The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.
means that a hurricane will form a car under your conditions regardless whether its physically possible or not :rolleyes:

So its you that's not on par with reality. Not us.

all the best

you refuse to relinquish all support for that false statement. Rather you give mixed answers.

So then you're admitting your insistance is wrong if it's physically impossible?

Sure. That isn't really saying much at all. If it is impossible it is impossible.

Save yourself the energy and just plug a 'yes' or 'no'. What you said seems to be a half-hearted admission.

I want a simple answer to this thread, because it troubles me to think that you insist that:

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

If you insist on using that definition you are going to run into trouble, as some of accepted laws of physics are thought to break down in specific situations such as in black holes etc.

I'm quoting what the definition given by scientists are... the black hole thing, i dont think you understand what you're talking about... check this out.. the law doesn't fail, it just undergoes a transformation.... just like we use lorenz transformations to make the link between classical and relativitistic scales.

source

And no physicist worth his salt would ever claim to know a "law" that is beyond contention. NOTHING in science is beyond contention. Our knowledge isn't perfect. That is the whole point of science.

quit changing topic... why do you think i defined physics as "the actual laws governing the universe", just ot avoid you drifting into mystics and metaphysics.

I've asked you simple questiosn that you rather dodge using unclear answers.




---
replies to personal attacks... *sigh* :uhwhat

So you are just trolling then? Plain and simple? What a waste of time.

you4got to put the rest of my quote there, the bit in red :giggling:

As shown in an earlier response, almost everything you attributed to me was a misatribution. Indeed just a couple posts up you continued to create straw men. You need to be careful about doing that.

lie, everything i attributed to you where your thoughts and i proved it. The only misattribution was Trumbles quote, and i showed that you where very supportive to his quote. Now you backed away, and that's a good sign.

More ad homs. I thought you'd resolved to stop that childishness.

Can anyone show me a single personal attack i made against pygo in last couple posts:?

[lolwatever]

i said it yesterday and i'll say it agen...pygo, lolwateva..ur both crazy...

can u guys just call it even and maybe discuss rational topics that actually get somewhere. its been two days.and what have u guys learnt???

(im kidding about the crazy thing. ur both very good debaters but u both dnt have the neutrality to make it a productive debate,...

can someone close this thread...

ps: sorry steve.:)

sis i'm making a simple point:

By his own saying:


Quote:

The hurrincae in the factory example is merely incredibly unlikely (given that all the parts are there in infinite supply - that they won't be destroyed over time) and so will happen given infinite time.

means that a hurricane will form a car under your conditions regardless whether its physically possible or not :rolleyes:

So its him that's not on par with reality. Not us.


he's accusing us of this:

we have the non-believers actaually defending unlikely events being possible, and the believers being skeptics. It is a complete role reversal from normal, where it is theists who are making their fantastic claims and claiming them not only possible but fact.

When i clearly said 'unlikely (but physically possible) events can occur, but physically impossible events can not occur'

Someone is trying to avoid coming to terms with himself. :uhwhat

[Abdul Fattah]

lol Sorry! I was posting my response to you as you wrote that.

LOl srry for being so impatient :p

steve, I must say it is refreshing to have some actual intelligent conversation in this thread. You make a very good point about causality and the concept of randomness.

It could be argued (and maybe you are) that NOTHING is random. That random simply does not exist. All random number generators require a seed. All events that seem random have physical factors that made them happen the way they did. Randomness is perception and prediction. I can agree with that.

I'm glad we got that out of the way. I think that is the most important/relevant part. No to continue with the hypotetical:

Given that this is a true random number generator, I disagree here. First because of the point of time from which we are predicting. Second because of the meaning of infinity. Infinity never ends. Eventually the number will come up.

So aren't you saying an alternative posibility, in which the random number generator (lets call it RNG) produces infinite consecutive 25's is impossible? So that means that after a certain time of producing teh number 25 it suddenly bocomes imposible for the RNG to produce 25 again. So wouldn't that mean that at that point it is no longer random (as the previous result starts to affect the outcome).

[Pygoscelis]

So aren't you saying an alternative posibility, in which the random number generator (lets call it RNG) produces infinite consecutive 25's is impossible? So that means that after a certain time of producing teh number 25 it suddenly bocomes imposible for the RNG to produce 25 again. So wouldn't that mean that at that point it is no longer random (as the previous result starts to affect the outcome).

Since infinity goes on forever, I don't think you can say that it can give infinite consecutive 25s (if it is random and 25 isn't the only possible number), because the next number could always be not 25.

This is all quite a mind bender really.

[Pygoscelis]

steve im warning u!!!

ull never get out!!!;D :giggling: :p

lol! You funny! You will rot! (Still the funniest thing I've read above somebody's avatar).

But Nah I don't think Steve is trolling at all, so this could actually lead somewhere. It feels entirely different than the earlier discussion.

[lolwatever]

^ check my pm

[root]

"Given infinate time, and the absence/change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

This thread was a non starter since the creator failed to even corrrectly give the thread it's accurate title. As soon as you call upon known laws, you have deviated from it's original context......................

Deliberately or otherwise

[lolwatever]

"Given infinate time, and the absence/change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

I'll look at the case of using the word 'abscence' and 'change' respectively:

"Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

How do you substantiate that? What makes you so sure that 'nothing will happen' is not a possibility?

"Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

^o) A change of teh law of physics means only events that are physically possible within those new set of laws could possibly occur.

Therefore, For An event that violates those 'changed laws' to occur is impossible.

i.e. That statement is incorrect.

This thread was a non starter since the creator failed to even corrrectly give the thread it's accurate title. As soon as you call upon known laws, you have deviated from it's original context......................

Deliberately or otherwise

Since you made the above claim (which no one has yet made), trying to answer the question "Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen" is no different to answering "Given infinite time, anything can happen?".

:thumbs_up

[root]

=lolwatever;619168]I'll look at the case of using the word 'abscence' and 'change' respectively:

How do you substantiate that? What makes you so sure that 'nothing will happen' is not a possibility?

Correct. Stale-mate, everything & nothing is possible. The fact the universe is here indicates that the probability is that something happend which follows nicely onto a multiverse concept of infinate time with variable laws of physics.

An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

^o) A change of teh law of physics means only events that are physically possible within those new set of laws could possibly occur.

Agreed within the boundaries of changing laws, so a parallel line will never cross inside of infinity but could should the laws grant it at another time or place. I don't see a problem here.

Therefore, For An event that violates those 'changed laws' to occur is impossible.

Within the laws that we are bound to only. So what is your point.

i.e. That statement is incorrect.

Not really, as I just demonstrated.

Since you made the above claim (which no one has yet made), trying to answer the question "Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen" is no different to answering "Given infinite time, anything can happen?".

It is different. One only requires infinate time (your thread against Pygo) and the other uses infinate time AND changes to the laws of physics (Pygo's point).

Your arguement is based on known laws against a statement where the laws are variable.

[Abdul Fattah]

Since infinity goes on forever, I don't think you can say that it can give infinite consecutive 25s (if it is random and 25 isn't the only possible number), because the next number could always be not 25.

This is all quite a mind bender really.

Actually if it is truly random that means that "25" has to be a possible outcome for every single try. So if "25" is possible for every single try that means it is possible to get 25 with every single try and thus have infinite 25's. If that is not possible we are no longer talking about randomness.

[lolwatever]

Correct. Stale-mate, everything & nothing is possible.

You didn't say "everything and nothing" is possible did you? ^o)

Here's what you said:

"Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

meaning that jumbo jets could be created, as well as many other things. Which is something you can not substantiate.

You have moved away from discussing science and have entered into speculative metaphysics.

The fact the universe is here indicates that the probability is that something happend which follows nicely onto a multiverse concept of infinate time with variable laws of physics.

Multiverse theory is purely speculative metaphysics, nothing to do with science. Please read about quantum cosmology to get a more scientific understanding of how the universe most likely could have come about. Creation of this universe according to *science* (not metaphysics) has nothing to do with multiverses, and it (the instanton) was not the result of any prior physical event as you suggest.

An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

Where did you get that from :uuh: for all we know, the universe was not the result of any prior physical happening!

And what does that have to do with substantiating your premiss that ""Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen" " beating around the bush?

Agreed within the boundaries of changing laws, so a parallel line will never cross inside of infinity but could should the laws grant it at another time or place. I don't see a problem here.

Within the laws that we are bound to only. So what is your point.

Point is,

"Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

^ is wrong.

Anything means that even physically defiant occurrances can happen.

Not really, as I just demonstrated.

Read my poitn direclty above, perhaps you'll get it now.

Your arguement is based on known laws against a statement where the laws are variable.

When we discuss these things we discuss them using science, unless you have any scientific proof or derivation to substantiate both those claimes you made. You're no longer being scientific, you have entered into teh realms of metaphysics.

[root]

You didn't say "everything and nothing" is possible did you?

Correct I did not. I never said "something" either, it's pointless because nothing will undoubtly be part of everything! why do you need to attach a "nothing" as if it is not part of "everything"?

Everything and nothing and something :omg:

meaning that jumbo jets could be created, as well as many other things. Which is something you can not substantiate.

Far for me to suggest anything, I am merely stating that with infinate time and variable physical laws anything is possible.

You have moved away from discussing science and have entered into speculative metaphysics.

Rubbish.

Multiverse theory is purely speculative metaphysics, nothing to do with science. Please read about quantum cosmology to get a more scientific understanding of how the universe most likely could have come about. Creation of this universe according to *science* (not metaphysics) has nothing to do with multiverses, and it (the instanton) was not the result of any prior physical event as you suggest.

Yes, you would think that way would you not. afterall, a single universe is what all the skygod believers use to debate how the universe seems so well fine tuned, that's probably why you try to imply multiverses are Speculative.

Multiverse (science), a consequence of some scientific theories which results in conclusions necessitating more than one universe. This is often a result of attempts to rationalize the underlying mathematics in quantum theory to cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The fact that the Earth is not the centre of the universe was once speculative, or that our local star (The Sun) was the only sun and so was our solar system being the only solar system. Then later on we realised we were part of a galaxy (oh yes, the only galaxy) only to discover that we can see millions of them too. Why is it, people always like to think single and unique when everytime we are proven wrong. Does logic not necessitate that we probably are not part of a "unique" single entity we dub the universe......

Or is it that skygod believers like to think uniqueness as a way of deluding themselves to the real truth...... afterall, probability can't play it's hand when you only have one shot at something happening which in turns increases the conclusion of design by designer.

What I find really insulting of you, is the way you are so quick to dismiss something as scientifically "speculative" as and when it suits you, yet more than happy to throw god in as unspeculative. This image here reminds me so much as to the way you think:

God of the gaps so to speak.

Root: An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

LOLwater: Where did you get that from for all we know, the universe was not the result of any prior physical happening!

Very true. for all we know the universe WAS the result of a prior physical happening, equally very true

Point is,

"Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

^ is wrong.

Anything means that even physically defiant occurrances can happen.

Yes, is that not what I was saying in the first place.

Read my poitn direclty above, perhaps you'll get it now.

I think it is you who gets it now, though I personally doubt that very much

When we discuss these things we discuss them using science, unless you have any scientific proof or derivation to substantiate both those claimes you made. You're no longer being scientific, you have entered into teh realms of metaphysics.

OMG, science can't even prove anything. It merely attaches a probability to something being true, and right now though you don't bet because you are Muslim you are doing the equivelent on backing a horse at 5000/1 with your life savings..... :hiding:

[lolwatever]

ok i'm going to reply to the offtopics in this post and the rest in the following one.

I don't know why you're bringing in this skygod idea and god of gaps. But here we go...

Multiverse (science), a consequence of some scientific theories which results in conclusions necessitating more than one universe. This is often a result of attempts to rationalize the underlying mathematics in quantum theory to cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

You forgot to realise it's a hypothesis, it's barely a theory. It's mentioned in the very top link you gave me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29

The fact that the Earth is not the centre of the universe was once speculative, or that our local star (The Sun) was the only sun and so was our solar system being the only solar system. Then later on we realised we were part of a galaxy (oh yes, the only galaxy) only to discover that we can see millions of them too. Why is it, people always like to think single and unique when everytime we are proven wrong. Does logic not necessitate that we probably are not part of a "unique" single entity we dub the universe......

Because those where not based on any form of analytical proof, where those conclusions arrived to by use of mathematical analysis or nething? no.

Quantum cosmology doesn't say 'there definately could not have been another universe', what it does say is "this universe was not the result of any prior physical event", meaning that this whole 'throwing of cosmic dice infinitely' argument is dead in the water.

Hence why i'm utterly confused why you try bringing it up.

Or is it that skygod believers like to think uniqueness as a way of deluding themselves to the real truth...... afterall, probability can't play it's hand when you only have one shot at something happening which in turns increases the conclusion of design by designer.

If science does prove that other universes exist, that just affirms Allah's existance even more, sicne this universe is within 7 others, where each universe compared to its parent is like a ring thrown in a desert. Straight from hadith.

The point is that you can't use multiverse hypothesis to go and try claim that this universe was boudn to exist or it came to existance due to some other universe. Quantum cosmology makes more than a claim based on mere observation, it's based on mathematical path integrals rather than thoughts and speculations (like the examples you mentioned in the quote above the current one).

What I find really insulting of you, is the way you are so quick to dismiss something as scientifically "speculative" as and when it suits you, yet more than happy to throw god in as unspeculative. This image here reminds me so much as to the way you think:

huh? I'm sorry but when you make rash claims like

"Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

no scientist can agree unless you provide some sort of analytical proof or justification.

And the point of labelling your multiverse argument as speculative is becasue there's absolutely no linkage between that and the creation of this universe. Who cares if there are other universes or not, the point is, according to analytical proof, our universe isn't the result of a physical priori.

Given the premise "Whatever begins has a cause", if it's not a physical cause, and we have a book whose author clearly tells us that he is the cause. which contains enough miracles for an open minded person to take seriously, then it's not as speculative as you may think to believe that it was Allah who created this universe.

So i hope this does away with the multiverse business as far as creation of universe is concerned. Nothing to do with whether its correct or not, it's simply irrelevent and speculative.