|
7 registered members (3run, miwok, AndrewAMD, Quad, TipmyPip, fairtrader, 1 invisible),
637
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: AlbertoT]
#96262
10/28/06 16:22
10/28/06 16:22
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
This paradox has been proven to be false
Just out of interest, but how was this proven false?
You'll need a certain sequence of characters behind eachother, which form words, wich in their turn then off course need to be in the right order for it to become a poem.
A million years is a long time though, and monkeys can learn. I'd agree they may never write a poem just by chance with there eyes closed and not thinking about what they write, but there's obviously more to it.
Infact, in theory, as long as they have enough time, they will always write a poem, or? Just some thoughts on this, but a chance of 0.00000000001 does imply that it will happen 'one day', otherwise the chance should be zero instead. However, does a chance of zero really exist?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: AlbertoT]
#96264
10/28/06 18:58
10/28/06 18:58
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013 The Netherlands
Excessus
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013
The Netherlands
|
Quote:
The probability to put togheter a "working" molecule DNA like , just by chance,is so low that 13.5 bilions years and bilions galaxies are not sufficient
Well first of all, 13.7 billion years and billions of galaxies where in fact enough: we are here, right?
Second, there is no data about how many other stars, let alone gallaxies host lifeforms.
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: Excessus]
#96265
10/28/06 19:24
10/28/06 19:24
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Well first of all, 13.7 billion years and billions of galaxies where in fact enough: we are here, right?
Apart from that, a chance of 0.0000000000000000001 doesn't mean it can't happen today either.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: AlbertoT]
#96267
10/28/06 23:20
10/28/06 23:20
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
yes ok but we must have also a realistic approch to the problems, I suppose A very very low probability is something different than a null probability , in theory In practice it is the same stuff
This is infact a realistic approach. And no, it's definately not the same stuff. A none-zero chance means it will happen (at least once), a zero chance means that it will never ever happen, for infinity never ever.
A very very small chance will happen given enough time. In practise very very small chances kill people, zero chances don't, so trust me, it's different alright. 
By the way, I've got to admit though, I've got a slight objection against 0.0000000000001 -like chances .. In my opinion they either happen, or they don't, yes or no, meaning 1 out of 2 choices, meaning a (relative) chance of 50% or 0.5 . But I guess people in general wouldn't agree with my view.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 10/28/06 23:27.
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: AlbertoT]
#96269
10/29/06 22:20
10/29/06 22:20
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Everybody knows the paradox of the " typewriting monkeys " I suppose. If one milion monkeys typewrite for a one milion years then they can write a poem. This paradox has been proved to be false The monkeys will never write a poem
This cant be proven false because its not really a scientific statement, its a colorful exposition of randomness.
|
|
|
Re: An interesting book
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#96270
10/29/06 23:36
10/29/06 23:36
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,285 USA
Guardian
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,285
USA
|
Hi all, first I should say I approach this mainly from a Philosophic sense. Seth Lloyd is known "as an innovator and leader in the field of quantum computing." So doesn't it make sense that his world was formed this way? I've seen renesonce paintings depicting God holding an Artists or Arcitects compass in a like manner. I've heard another author on this subject, a Nobel Prize Winner, give much the same reasoning for the creation of the universe and the matter in it. But does it mater what process is used if you still have no reasonable theory of what set all this in motion. I think that much as many animals have pre-birth knowledge of the universe or instinct. So must a universe have pre-birth ability to form a complex universe. Where does this pre-state knowledge come from? Even self-programming computer programs have underling structure. To me it’s a big yawn, sounds like a combination of string theory, fractals and hologramatics. It may explain in part how the universe was created. But, still does not explain why, nor how a pre existence universe was preset to work in such ways. Just my two cents.  Guardian
|
|
|
|