Amedeo

In bad taste or even offensive to some.....
Finally I found the niche where I can talk
to pigmies and to giants.

Hello, people of the four humours.
I have the fifth humour and temperament.
Like the quintessence I stand
above the four natural elements,
in the empyrean abode of the immortals.

Earthlings, beware,
I can strike with the mighty bolt of Jove
and separate the clouds
above and below the firmament,
as the Elohim did to the waters
of their primordial world.

Listen to my word
and if you dare,
crawl to Olympus
with the breath
which you can spare.

==============================================

==== GIVEN ENOUGH TIME... ====

>About the probability of the monkey producing
>Shakespeare's works by random typing, Dawkins's view
>was that there is a probability. You indicated the
>opposite view, and said that he contradicted himself.
>Perhaps you will not mind elaborating on both views.
>For myself, I do not have any definite answer, since,
>to begin with, one has to say that "given enough
>time..." In the case of a monkey, the time is less
>than a hundred years, unless ww speak of a
>hypothetical monkey or some natural agent that keeps
>on typing for, say, a billion years. But there is a
>point to the monkey case, if we are really talking
>about anything happening [such as the works
>Shakespeare wrote], given enough time.... In the case
>of Shakespeare himself, there was an infinity of time
>behind him before the composing took place within a
>lifetime.
>
>For the moment, I'd like you to consider and criticize
>the following statements:
>
>(1)There is some probability for something to happen,
>if, under some specific conditions, it is physically
>possible for it to happens. For example, if I place
>sugar on dry cereal flakes, there is the possibility,
>as we know from experience, that, under certain
>conditions, if I stir the flakes, all the sugar will
>drop to the bottom of the bowl. Again, since
>Shakespeare's works have been actually produced, we
>know that there is the physical possibility to produce
>them and there is some probability that, in
>time, they are produced.
>
>(2) An infinite number of events in succession is in
>infinite time. Infinite time is not a period of time.
>(A period of time is a finite time.)
>
>(3) For a single object, its successive events
>[segments-of-time filling events] in a period of time
>are finite -- as one can easily demonstrate
>mathematically. (A die can be cast an X amount of
>times within one hour. A bowl can be mixed a Y number
>of times within one hour. Etc.)
>
>(4)Is it true that in eternal time [infinite in both
>directions from a given point] anything which is
>physically possible WILL happen? [What I admitted
>earlier was that, given the physical possibility, an
>event probably happens.] I say that it cannot be true,
>since in infinite ["eternal"], limitless, time there
>can be an infinite number of events, but it does not
>follow that all physically possible events will
>happen. (An infinity of events can be an infinity of
>events of the same kinds. So, infinite time does not
>imply that an infinity of diverse events will happen.
>A "physically possible event" may be a thought event,
>as in the case where the possibility of an event is
>inferred from other things rather than based on the
>experience of actual happenings. The universe of
>possible events is greater than the universe of actual
>physical events in the eternity of time.)Thus: it may
>happen that some events conceived as physically
>possible neither happen nor will happen.
>
>(5) Is it true that in finite time (in a period of
>time) anything that can possibly happen to an object
>will happen? For example, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME (a period
>of time of some lenth or other), will the faces of a
>cast die turn face-up an equal number of times? I say
>this need not ever happen.
>
>It is an axiom of the classical theory of probability
>that in a period of time, the equal number of
>up-facings will occur. Obviously, I do not consider it
>true. Do you know of any basis for that axiom? If the
>axiom is groundless it may still have a limited
>validity, in which case we should say that, the longer
>the period of time (in which the casting is done), the
>more probable it is for the 6 faces to turn face-up an
>equal number of times. (That is, the Theory is probably
>true under certain time cinditions.) Thus the Theory
>has an approximate value in the same way that the
>smaller spaces are [within our visual, not necessarily
>microscopic), the more Eucledian geometry holds. At
>the same time, the classical theory of probability
>cannot be used to make statistical demonstrations of
>events, such as the occurrence of telepathy in a
>situation where one person consecutively looks at 5
>randomly shuffled cards and the responder's
>identificationsof the cards (over, say, 100 trials)
>are significantly beyond chance expectation. The
>number of correct responses proves nothing.
>
>(6) If one says, "Natural events happen by chance (are
>random happenings) rather than by necesity (on account
>of the built-in potentials of the elements," he is
>saying that any formation or organization is physically
>possible; and, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, species (such as our
>historical species) will be formed. Of course my
>implied
>contention is that what happens by chance need not
>even happen.
>
>Incidentally, there is a real issue between, not
>creationism and evolutionism, but between chance
>evolution and necessary evolution... I am thinking of
>the fact that aside from the PRESENT species, the
>previous species which mutated or transformed into the
>present species (all of them making up the evolution
>picture) WERE PRESENT at same time or other in the
>past. (I am not talking about the species which became
>extinct. Barrying catastophic cause of the
>existinction of some species, a species that head
>toward extinction is in a debilitating or regressive
>mode,so to speak, while the other species are in an
>empowered or progressive mode.)
>
>We speak of species in transformation [evolutionary]
>process, but in order for there to be species
>transformation, there must be microscopic
>transformations (evolutionary processes) going in the
>individuals of a given species. Evolution is precisely
>gradual, rather than by jumbs, so that, when we
>compare 2 generations separated by a 1000 generations,
>we find them so different as to consider them two
>different species. Given microscopic transformation
>processes(in individuals), then we can see that
>something can happen to some individuals (such as
>genetic changes induced by radiations and what not)
>which will drive either an entire species or a portion
>of a species toward extinction. Thus, if we consider
>the enigma of Neanderthal Man, we can envion a large
>segment of the species heading toward extinction, and a
>portion heading into Cromagnon man.
>
>By the same token that a species or part of a species
>becomes extinct by externally induced microscopic
>changes, a flourishing species may also be so affected
>that part of it undergore progressive transformations
>in some respect, as with respect to the cerebrum. Thus
>Homo Faber may remain basically so [a "species"] for
>a myriad of years, but some individuala at certain
>locations are so effected that a portion of the
>specied has actually advanced. So, it may not be by
>chance that certain populations of one species
>developed original civilizations (complexes of
>craftsmanship, inventions and technology, art,
>ideologies, political societies, etc., of a type more
>advanced that the cultures of other populations) -- to
>wit, the Chinese, the Egyptian, the Sumerian, the
>Aegean, the Mayan, the Moorish, and the Italic -- all
>on a geographical band with proximity to
>fish-infested waters which either through fish-food or
>through inhaled evaporations, brought (I suppose)
>phosphorus into the utmost microscopic genetic cells
>which resulted into enhances brains. (You must be
>laughing... while you probe microscopic mysteries in
>the laboratory, prepare an expedition to watery sites,
>and plan genetic engineering of humans accordingly. At
>some point or other in history, some populations
>became more phosphorescent than others, out of latent
>cerebral enhancements. The verifications are there for
>you to make.]
>
>In sum, there can be two types of a species
>bifurcation, the one that leads to progressive
>developments and exterior-induced regressive
>developments, and the one whereby part of a species
>continues to be progressive and another part of the
>species is also enhanced.
>
>So, one may have the view that, given enough time,
>there could biologically happen what has actually
>happened. My view is that no one can predict what will
>happen, but the evoultion that HAS happened had
>happened by necessity and by environmental
>circumstances. (There may have been and possibly there
>are going to be innumerable life cycles such as the
>one we are witnessing.)
>
>I also see that what happens by necessity is not
>indiscriminately any KIND of event. In better words,
>the NATURE of what comes-to-be is necessitated also.
>Today the elements are no longer conceived as in
>ancient times, that is, as homogeneous substances of
>diverse kinds ("water," "fire," etc.) The modern
>element is a complex microscopic universe whose
>infinitesimal factors are still beyond our
>imagination.
>"Infinitesimal reality" is the key to understanding
>all that emerges and the kinds of things that emerge.
>Poorly speaking, an element is like a semen whose
>contents potentially contain what is to be. That is
>why, even some ancient Christians could say that god
>did not really create the world which is before us;
>he created the "seminal reasons" [postulated by the
>Stoics] which grew into the present world.They
>admitted both creation and development (which could be
>evolution, if only the body of man is considered).
>Now, whether there was or there can be the creation of
>something, I will not venture to say, unless I
>consider the nature of Time iself and the Parmenidean
>issue as to whether it is POSSIBLE for what exists to
>have either a beginning or an end.
>

[Anyone interested in reading the discussion in which Amedeo posted this, go here - NPM, Humor Mod]

-----------------------P.S.
The above [with typos and all] was originally posted in the group "Voices for America," run by Christian fundamentaliats. No responses were made and eventually the Group was deleted. I posted it in two other groups, with no ensuing response or conversation. Meanwhile, the thread I opened in this Forum, "The Argument from Design", has been considered a big joke, and they are discussing right now, whether it should be moved to the HUMOR section. That gave me the idea that I should post my ridiculous messages in the Humor section to begin with. And here I am. If people cant' respond to it, they may as well have a laugh at it. If the humor is poor, well... given enough time.... My having demolished the Theory of Probability should provoke some laughter, I hope.

Non-praying Mantis

Is the post ridiculous, yes.

Is the post humorous, no.

So, this goes ~Elsewhere~.

NPM, Humor Mod

Sven

It's not really worth the time, but I feel a strange attrachtion to crap like this...

AFAIK, it was not only his "view", but he additionally explained how it works.

Who is "you"?

:huh: Why does the amount of time before Shakespeare matter?
And how do you know that there was an infinity of time before him? Most modern cosmologists would disagree.

Why? You just defined "period of time" to be "finite" - why should we accept this definition?


I think this finally depends on how you define "physically possible".
But on this point, I agree.

Ignoring the fact that this axiom only exists in the form you presented below: Yes. Assumed that the dice is perfect, the probability of each side turning up is entirely based on deterministic effects like the time of shuffling, the direction in which the dice is cast, the shape of the surface on which it is cast etc. Those parameters can safely assumed to be "random", and thus the outcome would be random. Thus, each side will turn up with the same probability, and thus over time the same amount of time.
The other basis is simply that it was observed experimentally.

That's the form of the axiom I know. IOW, only for t->infinity, we expect an equal amount for each side.

No. Why?
Since the only natural events which occur by chance are at the quantum level, I really don't see how this follows.

Our species was not formed by chance.

It's neither nor. Evolution has both a random part and a necessary part. Calling it either simply shows your profound lack of understanding.

:huh: Is there a typo? Perhaps 2 species?

Umm, the Neanderthal Man is not the ancestor of the Cromagnon man.

Species continously change over time; the time between speciation "events" may reach tens of thousands of years, but certainly not a "myriad of years".


Only that culture has nothing to do with biological evolution.

You again neglect the possibility of x-furcations with x > 2.

Certainly.

You forgot the random mutations. The life we have today is only one possibility out of a myriad other possibilities.

Where? :huh: On Earth? And which cycle are you talking about?

[snip rest]

MrFrosty

Given enough time, somebody will be bored enough to read all that

Amedeo

When one says, "given enough time," what is this TIME one is talking about?

One way to show what "time" means (as Peirce the pragmaticist would say) is to look at the consequences of the concept. Each "argument " in the original post -- as to what is possible, necessary, etc. -- is made against the background of one or more concept of "time." So, looking back at what I wrote almost in one breath [to a member of an ol Forum], I discern "conceptual or abstract TIME" [which lies behind "given enough time"] and "real or concrete TIME."

I have read and re-read the post, and I find it logically coherent, but I have not explicitated yet the two concepts of time which are found therein. (The reader should make a probing analysis rather than wonder whether this or that is true or false. Truth and falsity judgments can be made only about assertions of realty. Is time a reality which is evident by itself? If it is, then certainly judgments about it are either true or false. But that's exactly what is at issue: What is TIME???))

-------------
"Physically possible" is any kind of event which has actually been realized. (Facts are the bases of what is physically/really possible.) What is not known to have ever occurred may or may not be possible. Possibility or impossibility may not be asserted in the abstract. (If they are asserted in the abstract, then the assertions are never applicable to or claimable for any reality.) probability calculations about a die which are based of the topography of the die hold for a die in an abosolute empty space -- a geometrical space -- not a physical die in physical reality.
Like "time," space is either conceptual or physical/real. [I have already spoken of the 3 suppositiones of a word: personal [real], formal [conceptual], and material [verbal].

When one attributes to reality any of our concepts-- time, space, being, species (or any other class) -- one supernaturalizes (and thus falsifies) reality.
Most people supernaturalize unwittingly, as.... we necessarily use concepts when we speak abouy relity. (We are almost damned to commit the fallacy of supernaturalization.)

hclincha

Given enough time, a bunch of monkeys will produce all the arguments on WinAce's site.

Amedeo

No matter how much time is given, not everybody will understand "Given Enough Time...."