miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (07/25/85)
I wrote: >> You will >> never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the >> universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution". To which Andy Hogan replied: > There is an assumption of rate and/or of the liftime of the universe implicit > in this statement. Ray is assigning HIS desired outcome a high probability > (possibly certainty) and making assumptions to prove it. Given a fast enough > random letter generator (none exists here/now) you will find the probability > of a meaningful string coming out will indeed become high. In the absence of > absolute knowledge of the rate at which a primordial soup might produce > life, we can make no conclusions about the probability of life arising on > Earth. We can note that life is here, and investigate the possible rate of > life arising. Well, this is easily checked. Given 27 characters (including blank) the number of combinations of length 23 is 834,385,168,331,080,533,771,857,328,695,283. Assuming 1 trillion generations/second (extraordinarily generous!!!) for 22 billion years (anyone here think its older than that?) then, well, the rest is left as an exercise to the reader... So, Andy, why don't you do some back of the envelope calculations and give us a rate/age which will return probabilities that "will indeed become high"? > The SETI project is looking for regular > electromagnetic phenomena which might be intelligently produced signals. > ... The key is that they will search for manipulation of > the electromagnetic spectrum, not just regular radio waves. Now we see double standards. Define "intelligently produced signals" or "mani- pulation" objectively. Why is it we can see evidence of intelligent design one place but not another? Why did I mention double standards? Replace the words "design", "designed", and "designer" below with "manipulate", "manipulated" and "manipulator". Since the following quote was posted to the net by an evolu- tionist, it is only fair to remind them of it now. > First you must provide an objective definition of design, > not just the gut feeling, "this looks sophisticated therefore > it must be designed". Secondly you must show how this proposed > definition of design *intrinsically* *implies* a designer. > And pleas remember, avoid circularity and begging the question, > simply saying "this fits my definition of design and the dictionary > defines design in such a way as to imply a designer" is *not* > sufficient since you are not using the dictionary definition. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/30/85)
In article <32500043@uiucdcsb> miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA writes: > > >> The SETI project is looking for regular >> electromagnetic phenomena which might be intelligently produced signals. >> ... The key is that they will search for manipulation of >> the electromagnetic spectrum, not just regular radio waves. > >Now we see double standards. Define "intelligently produced signals" or "mani- >pulation" objectively. Why is it we can see evidence of intelligent design one >place but not another? Why did I mention double standards? Replace the words >"design", "designed", and "designer" below with "manipulate", "manipulated" and >"manipulator". Since the following quote was posted to the net by an evolu- >tionist, it is only fair to remind them of it now. > Please note the word *might* in the above quote! This means that the SETI people are looking for suggestive evidence not proof! Thus no problem, they are not claiming ability to recognize design, only that some classes of results are *as far as is now known* more likely to be produced by intelligence than by natural events! In this context "intelligently produced" means resembling those that *we* produce and "manipulated" means showing features we have never seen except in radio waves *we* have manipulated. Notice that the recognition of *possible* design is based on direct awareness of a designer, ourselves, and our knowledge of how that designer works. You see, I do have a definition of design, but it requires real observation of the designer to be applied. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/30/85)
........ >Well, this is easily checked. Given 27 characters (including blank) the number >of combinations of length 23 is 834,385,168,331,080,533,771,857,328,695,283. >Assuming 1 trillion generations/second (extraordinarily generous!!!) for >22 billion years (anyone here think its older than that?) then, well, the rest >is left as an exercise to the reader... So, Andy, why don't you do some back >of the envelope calculations and give us a rate/age which will return >probabilities that "will indeed become high"? Yes, but how many of those combinations contain 'information'? And, is 23 the only length that produces 'information'? You're example would seem to indicate that there is only 1 right answer, while there actually may be billions (or even more!). >A. Ray Miller >Univ Illinois Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd