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

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?
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?
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:

 

[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

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

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

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:

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