Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/06/23 11:29
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
7 registered members (3run, miwok, AndrewAMD, Quad, TipmyPip, fairtrader, 1 invisible), 637 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
An interesting book #96261
10/27/06 20:55
10/27/06 20:55
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Hello

One of the most popular topics of this forum is evolutionism
I am reading in these days an interesting book ,approching the problem from an other point of view
the title is "Programming the universe " by Seth Lloyd
The author claims that universe is actually a "quantum computer " consequently it "must" evolve towards complicated structures without the need of an intelligent architect
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 book resume this concept but using completely new ( at least for me) perspective
Just for your information

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 Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
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


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: An interesting book [Re: PHeMoX] #96263
10/28/06 17:07
10/28/06 17:07
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
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
This conclusion is consolidated. nowadays
The monkey paradox has been dropped by pratically everybody
There are two alternatives left :

- an intelligent architect
- An intrinsic capability of matter to evolve towards sophisticated structures

This book support the second theory

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
E
Excessus Offline
Expert
Excessus  Offline
Expert
E

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 Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
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


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: An interesting book [Re: PHeMoX] #96266
10/28/06 20:39
10/28/06 20:39
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
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

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 Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
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.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: An interesting book [Re: PHeMoX] #96268
10/29/06 16:06
10/29/06 16:06
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
An example taken from the book
Suppose you want to write the number : 3.1415926......up to n figures with n = 1,000,000
If 1 bilion monkeys type on the numerical pad for 1 bilion years they will never generate this number ( ok, very likely ,they will never...)
However the number can be generated also using a short program
Replace the 1 bilion typewriting monkeys with 1 bilion programmer monkeys
They typewrite "istructions" for the computer, in other words the monkeys create programs
Most of the programs will never produce any output or nonsense ouputs
However it is likely that sooner or later one monkey , one day will write a program to write the numeber 3.1415926...N up to n = 1.000.0000

The author extend this concept to other enetities
Some entities seem to be extramely complicated but they can be created using simple programs
Think for example at the "fractals"
It is impossible ( sorry, it is unlikely..) to paint a Malbroot fractal by chance but if you consider the simple program which generate this fractal it is definitly an other matter

Re: An interesting book [Re: AlbertoT] #96269
10/29/06 22:20
10/29/06 22:20
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

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.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
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 Offline
Serious User
Guardian  Offline
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


Guardian

Game Models
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1