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

[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? 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/comparative-religion/34969-if-god-created-universe-who-created-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

 

[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 :?