IAP Political Forum

This is split out of the Posts on Specification and Design.


I suppose it would have been more clear to say molecular equivalent rather than mass equivalent.

The formula is the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles) * 1/2 (colisions/particles) * Plank's constant (collisions/sec) * estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.

(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor)  I separated it for clarity.

The uncertainty bars are somewhat high for the number of particles in the universe and the age of the universe.  there are several websites that provide the confidence intervals for these values.  I leave that as an exercise for you.

wow, RF you really have Faith in this stuff, don't you?
It's too bad its meaningless, and has been shown to be false.
But that won't stop the Creationsits from believing - it never does.

btw, RF, how many bits is god made of? How likely is the sudden formation of a fully perfect non-being?  Or is this when you reach for your blinders and start the special pleading; "you can't talk about the supernatural! Only I can! Only I know what is possible in the other dimension!" ;D :o :P

Well, TBH, I don't find "it's out there, go look it up" to be very convincing. I'm not the one claiming an upper limit to the macro-events (or whatever the 10^150 is), so it would be a bit daft for me to assume it was my job to search for justification of a claim you put forward. "Somewhat high" is a designation I'm unfamiliar with in the field of statistics or probability theory.



There are a few issues I'd like to address in that equation:

The formula is:

the estimated number of atoms in the universe (particles).

What do you mean by particles (surely not subatomic particles)? What do you mean molecular equivalent? Molecular equivalent measured in particles? The number of atoms would be reported in atoms, if in fact the number of atoms is what is being estimated.


* 1/2 (colisions/particles)     

Whoa, whoa, stop right there.

The 1/2 isn't what concerns me so much at this point, it's arbitrarily throwing the extra collisions/particles in there that's the problem. We need to get the units straight on this before we can start thinking about quantity.

You can't just go throwing units into the equation all willy nilly.

What's the explanation for this?


* Plank's constant (collisions/sec)

The Planck constant has units of joules * seconds, not collisions/seconds. It is used in describing subatomic phenomena. A joule in base units is (m*m*kg/(s*s)).


* estimated age of Universe (sec) = macro-events that have occurred so far.

(Plank's constant often includes the 1/2 factor)  I separated it for clarity.

Corrected for the erroneous additions of collisions/seconds and 'particles', the units in this equation would be:

atoms*joules*sec*sec

Substituting base units for joules would yield:

atoms*m*m*kg

distance squared ( that's area) times mass times a quantity of atoms.

area * mass * a quantity of atoms

What exactly does this unit describe?

It sounds nonsensical to me.



The units are just the tip of the iceberg on this one. The issue of why these variables are used (are they valid in describing what you are trying to describe?), and how the values used for the variables were determined. Come to think of it, you haven't even stated what the values are yet, or explained how you're accounting for matter-energy interchange.

I have no interest in justifying it to you.  Probability limits are not a novel concept and in my mind don't need to be defended.  Are you now claiming that this estimate of a universal upper bound is incorrect?  Once you claim it is incorrect then I may feel the need to defend it.


Since evolution is a macro event we must only consider macro events in the formulation.  Atoms are the smallest particles that contribute to the kind of macro events involve in chemical interactions.



Measures of gravitational strength includes energy which is then reduced to the molecualar equivalent.  It is possible that estimates of the number of atoms in the universe are overstated by inclusion of unconstrained energy (radiation is an example).



Each collision involves two (or more) particles. 

* Plank's constant (collisions/sec)


Plank coined more than one constant.  Forgive me for being imprecise.  Let's call it Plank time instead.


[
Yes your formulation is nonsensical.  I was unclear about Plank time an you substituted in the wrong value and units.



Please unequivocally claim I am wrong with this estimate and I will be happy to explain it further.  Otherwise I will presume you are simply attempting to confuse the issue.

I am simply an observer in this discussion, but why would you assume that he was attempting to confuse the issue?  Is that because you would or are doing the same?  I do not see the point in automatically assuming your debate partner is debating not in good faith...

I base it off of past history of this poster.  He seems to have a nasty habit of this when he disagrees.  Also I base it on the nature of his questions and statements.  His questions appear to be leading questions.  They do not appear to be questions seeking clarification.  Also he seems to presume that when he does not understand, it is because I have made a fundamental error.  He could just as easily phrase it to come ac cross as not following the statement.

I do not know if I am correct about this, but if illy is concerned about his opponent's opinion of him, he may wish to alter his approach.  If not, that is certainly his prerogative.

As for my approach to illy, clearly you seem to find fault with it.  I have noted it.  Thank-you.

You put forth a claim that there is a universal probability limit of 10^150.

You need to back your claim up if you expect it to be taken seriously.



Here is the Planck constant:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/a/9/7a90905d0dbb8889ed4d27e3aa492b19.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant)

notice it's measured in J*s, not collisions/second

Here is the  formula for Planck Time

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/2/f/a2ff51f44a010844fcc48e8d2c84b21f.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time)

notice it's units are in seconds, not collisions/second.

You can't just randomly name scientific concepts and think that calling out their names validates your claim, that's not how it works. Show me the equation. I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove your point. Don't break it down into semantics and word games. This is math. Define your equation, define your variables (units and values) and justify why they're valid.

Otherwise this 10^150 is nothing more than a number you're fond of.

If I'm the one making nonsense out of things here, by all means, shut my nonsense down with mathematical fact. Keep putting up nonsensical equations, and nonsense is what your going to find when they're evaluated. As the old saying goes, GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out).

My last reply was well reasoned and civil. The only thing nasty here is your attempted abuse of mathematics.

It is not I, but basic algebra that is your opponent.

Ah, RF's nemesis! ;D :lol:

No it is not.  The inverse of the formula for Planck Time is collisions or events per second.  illy you are beginning to embarrass yourself.  You're hanging yourself.

I saw where you said Planck's Constant, then said Plank Time.  I missed where we were supposed to be using it's inverse. 

That's preposterous.

For the inverse of the Planck time constant to be reported in collisions/seconds, Plank time would need to be expressed in seconds/collisions. It is not.

Honestly, I think you need to work on your basic algebra before you start taking on subjects like physics and probability.

Did you find my original explanation and formula confusing? Were you not able to look at the units and reason out that the form I used was the inverse?  I am sorry, I guess I assume too much.

preposterous illy? What does planck time measure if not events/collisions/potential interactions or however else you wish to describe it?

In general I find most of what you post confusing and convoluted. 

The formula specified seconds.  Are you changing this?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/2/f/a2ff51f44a010844fcc48e8d2c84b21f.png)

Here it is again in case you missed it. Planck time is a unit of time, measured in seconds. 'Collisions' are not a unit used to express Planck time.


So, do you have the "right" equation to post, or is this whole thing bunk?

illy, I suppose I have been assuming that you understand the concept behind planck time, and planck distance, and planck's constant.  Perhaps you don't.  Why don't you just say you don't understand rather than implying I am making stuff up?  The basis of planck length is that it is the distance at which effects transition from macro effects to quantum effects.  Planck time is the time it takes light to travel the planck distance.  Therefore planck time is the inverse of the maximum frequency of collisions or interactions or effects that can occur at the atomic level. 

My apologies for being stubborn and uncooperative.

Sure, I'm the one who can't understand the Planck constant or Plank time.

Am I the one who made faulty statements about each of them?

You're understanding of inverses is also faulty. Taking an inverse doesn't add new units, it just inverses the existing units.




BTW, how are things coming along with that equation?

Universal probability limit = Maximal number of macro particles (particles) * 1/2 (events/particles) * Maximal frequency of macro events (1/sec) * Universal elapsed time (sec) = maximal universal macro events.

10^81 * 1/2 *10^43 * 5*10^17 = 10^141.   I evened it out to a conservative 10^150

So, it doesn't actually contain the Planck constant or Plank time as you once claimed?

Essentially, your just making stuff up to put in there, like your events/particles, where is this coming from? Earlier you claimed you had separated the 1/2 from the Planck constant, or is it Planck time, or wait, hold on, it's the inverse of Planck time (is that your final answer?). You still don't get to just pop new units into the equation.
 

BTW, 10^81 is an estimation of number of atoms, while Planck time is the time it takes a photon to travel a Plank length. Seems like you're comparing photons to atoms. A bit worse than an apples to oranges comparison.

An ad lib of sorts in the pursuit of 10^150?


Also, what happened to your mass equivalent, how are we accounting for mas/energy interchange?

Yes it does.  To be precise, Planck time is inverse of the maximal number of macro interactions.


No.


Forgive me for not being precise.  illy.  I did not realize you were this anal.  Had I known I would have been very exact in my terms.  Given that I evened it out to 10^150 (giving chance an undeserved advantage) the 1/2 is inconsequential.
 


You are despicable for accusing me of a lie I did not commit.

I could have used the maximal number of organisms estimated to have ever lived on earth, the maximum observed replication rate or the maximal rate of chemical reaction kinetics and earth time and come to a number somewhere around 10^75.   Do you prefer that number?



The General Theory of Relativity will provide the answer you seek.

How abour using a nuber that acutally has an "analog" in reality, instead of offhandedly creating vague numbers to try to prove your god?

There does exist a maximal universal probability limit.   I am quite shocked that you don't find the estimate of total matter in the universe, planck time, and the estimated age of the universe to have any "analog" in reality.  Since you claim that my estimate is vague and possibly not correct perhaps you can offer a more accurate estimate.

There may be, but you have no idea what it is. Dembski et al are guessing or worse.


(BTW, I notice you looked at my Dover Down thread: will you accept the challange?)

Choosing maximal values is all about estimating a conservative number that is beyond critique using an educated basis for the estimate.  I have a good idea what it is.   I know that it is a function of the quantity of matter, the frequency that matter can interact with other matter and the time span that it has interacted.  Thus the numbers above.


 

Choosing a maximal value out of your ass isn't science.

Please cite your references regarding the amount of matter in the universe, etc. and that Dembski's numbers have validity.

You like wiki right?  In this general article on the Observable Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) they indicate the matter content of "normal atoms" at 7*10^79 (hydrogen equiv.). When you consider all contributions to gravitational force (all the density of the universe) you get 1.4*10^81

Not certain what else you are asking for.

I like wikipedia just fine, but you often seem to take issue with it. I wonder why you think it is fine now and not other times.

I am asking you to cite the source: the author and paper that you are taking as "gospel", since I happen to know that there are is a wide variety of different numbers to choose from, including infinity.

The wiki article includes sources and also describes the basis for age of the universe too.  Wiki also has a good description of Plank, QM, and the basis for Planck time.  Those are the only numbers I used, so I'm not sure why you are asking for additional sources.  In "The Design Inference" Dembski cites three or four mathematicians who have proposed limits far lower than this one.

  

I am presuming you think the number should be higher, is that right?  I'd be interested in a non-QM, and empirically based one that suggests a higher number than 10^150.

Anal?

Excuse me, but WTF are you talking about? You came on here with claims of this "universal probability limit", and the equation was utter nonsense, you change it twice, and it still has some big problems (you arbitrarily inserting in units to influence the outcome).

When I ask for an equation that works, you try all manner of childish tactics. Calling me nasty, questioning my ability to comprehend scientific concepts, demanding that I make certain absolutist claims before you will answer yours.

It took you till page two to even show what values you were using, and you still haven't posted a complete equation (that incorporates both units and values for the variables into one equation). Any questions you can't handle you ignore, or insult my intelligence, or just name another concept without explaining how it justifies the original claim that you made and have yet to back.




You know damn well what I'm talking about and now you're playing dumb to try to avoid the reality that you are arbitrarily inserting units. I've said multiple times that the 1/2 isn't the issue. The events/particle is the issue. You made it up, that's why you can't put your units and values in one equation. There is no value for "events/particles". It's why you haven't posted up the equation, complete with units and values in the same expression. This is something you should have done in your OP.

So, let me re-hash this once more.

Here are your equation(s):


Why is it necessary for you to write the units and the values separate? The 1/2 is, as you claim insignificant when talking 10^any power, so why did you put it in? It's simple, you couldn't just pop in events/particles by itself, or you would have one more variable in the unit equation than the value equation, you needed a value, no matter how insignificant, to add up to four variables for your value equation. That's why 1/2 is the only value that appears in the units equation. Did you think I wouldn't notice?


Why did you just arbitrarily pop "events/particles" in? Because it is the ONLY place in the equation other than the "maximal macro events" that "events" appears. Without it you couldn't come up with "events" in your final product and IT HAS NO BASIS FOR BEING THERE. You understand that I'm not going to buy a BS equation where the units don't work out, so you had to add  /particles to get rid of the atoms you're erroneously trying to equate with photons. You didn't assign a value, the 1/2 comes Planck time according to you (we both know it 1/2 isn't in the description of Planck time, but it's the least of your problems) You didn't assign a value for the events/particles, because you know you can't.

You're talking about photons (or why else would you even use Planck time?), which as quantized energy can neither be created or destroyed. You didn't put in events/(particles * seconds), you put in events/particles. There is no time dimension, it can only mean events over the entire life of the photon (which cannot be created or destroyed), and that makes the term meaningless.


You can't just pop units in arbitrarily. If I have a jar of jelly beans, (expressed as 1,000 jelly beans/1 jar), I can't say: 1000 jelly beans/1 jar * ((dollars*jars/beans) = $1,000. Hey, look at me, I just created money from jelly beans.

It doesn't work. Anyone with a chemical engineering degree any type of college degree high school diploma little common sense knows that. You know that, I don't doubt that you do.

Truth be told, this is what concerns me. You know math, you know science, and instead of using your knowledge to assist other people in understanding the world, you use it to confuse them, you use it to lie (and you have, multiple times in this thread), you use it to bully those who disagree with you, and you use it for propaganda purposes. You use it to foster ignorance.


This is what is despicable, this is what is nasty.

illy, my formula has not changed, my values have not changed, my units have not changed and the solution has not changed.  I pity you because of your demonstrated inability to be forthright.  For a while you even had me believing you were confused, but your game is now to obvious to ignore.

Really, so I must have just been imagining that whole Planck constant->Plank time->Inverse of Planck time thing then?

In short, your "maximal universal macro events" unit (events) is entirely dependent on your (events/particles), which is some nonsense you made up and tried to piggy back in on a 1/2 that you also made up.

RF, can't you at least be honest for once and at least admit that you are stealing this from Dembski? you keep saying that you are presenting this, but it is Dembski's work, which, has been shown to be off by 65 orders of magnitude.  The Karl Rove of Information Theory (Dembski) is not a man you should want to align yourself with if you desire credibility. I imagine this is where you have picked up his (dis)information theory tricks.


http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/tdr.html


Desperately Evading the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design: A Review of Dembski's The Design Revolution
Jeffrey Shallit
University of Waterloo
William Dembski's latest book, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design consists of 44 questions about intelligent design with short answers by Dembski -- each answer takes about 6 or 7 pages, on average. Critics of Dembski -- such as Mark Perakh -- who were looking forward to having their objections addressed will be disappointed. The Design Revolution is even more intellectually dishonest than I thought possible. The easy questions Dembski actually addresses are answered disingenuously; the really hard questions he avoids entirely. This book should have been titled Desperately Evading the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design.

So many of Dembski's answers consist of evasion or dissembling that it would take a book as long as Dembski's own to catalogue them all. In this short essay I'll just list a few.

Consider chapter 5, "Religious motivation". Dembski says "let's be clear that design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds". With nearly every prominent intelligent design supporter a conservative Christian, this isn't even remotely plausible. Consider three of the leaders of the ID movement:

Phillip Johnson converted to fundamentalist Christianity after a mid-life crisis and made "Defeating Darwinism" (part of the title of one of his books) his new mission.
Jonathan Wells candidly admitted that "Father's [Rev. Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism..."
Dembski himself, in a March 7, 2004 talk at the Fellowship Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, admitted his own motivation is religious. He said, "I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this, is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonder of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed."
These do not sound like scientific grounds for opposing "Darwinian theory".

Elsewhere I have shown how Dembski has a history of incorrect citation of quotations -- even when previously informed of his errors. Here's another example. On page 52, Dembski writes "Nor does philosopher Daniel Dennett help matters when, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he recommends quarantining religious parents who object to their children being taught evolutionary theory."

The only problem is that Dennett wrote no such thing. Dennett actually wrote, on page 519, "...those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage..." To find the people Dennett is actually referring to, one has to read the quotation in the context of the entire chapter. It is those (listed on pages 516-517) who insist on slavery, child abuse, discrimination, and fatwas on their opponents, all in the name of their religion. Dennett has informed Dembski that he did not say what Dembski attributes to him, and Dembski even sort-of retracted his bogus claim in 2000. Neverthless, it appears again in The Design Revolution with no indication of the controversy. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

On page 159, Dembski contrasts the information in one copy of a text with that in two copies. He writes "Nor for that matter do both copies together contain more information than any one copy individually. The mathematics justifying these claims is straightforward." However, using the definition of information most commonly used in computer science -- that is, Kolmogorov complexity -- Dembski's claim is incorrect. In fact, it can easily be proved (and I have assigned it in my undergraduate course on computation) that there exist infinitely many strings x for which there exists more Kolmogorov information in xx than x. Dembski was informed of this in December 2002, but he persists in making this bogus claim.

Any theory of information in which n copies of a text have no more information than a single copy is obviously wrong, because one can clearly store an arbitrary amount of extra information encoded in the number n which specifies the number of copies.

Here's another example of Dembski's disingenuous answers: On page 303, Dembski refers to some unnamed articles in scientific journals. He claims "They are all written by design theorists and are listed in the ISCID bibliography." Unfortunately for anyone who wants to check Dembski's claims, the URL provided is not available to just anyone -- only to paying members of Dembski's own society, the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. What has Dembski got to hide? Maybe those papers don't say anything about design at all, but how could we know?

Now let's turn to the questions that Dembski refused to address.

Let's start with the most obvious question: what, exactly, is design? You'd think this would be a basic question Dembski would have to address in a book about "intelligent design" -- and Del Ratzsch, an ID-friendly philosopher at Calvin College has taken the ID movement to task for this omission -- but he doesn't. Does design just mean pattern? Or is it necessarily teleological? Neither this book, nor previous books such as No Free Lunch, address this question.

Here are a few more questions Dembski doesn't address in The Design Revolution:


When estimating the probability of events, why do you use two different and incompatible methods, depending on whether the event was human-caused or not?
As Wesley Elsberry and I have previously pointed out, when Dembski analyzes events that are clearly the result of human agency, such as the Caputo case, he estimates probability by assuming that events are independent and equally likely -- he ignores the known causal history of the events. However, when he analyzes other kinds of events, such as the generation of the protein URF13, his analysis is based on some hypothesized causal history. In one case in No Free Lunch, he even uses two different methods in analyzing the same example!

Why have you never acknowledged that a crucial calculation on page 249 of No Free Lunch is off by about 65 orders of magnitude, even though you were informed of this in 2002?
Dembski has a curious history of ignoring corrections. In a previous article, I showed how he continued to use a quotation of Schopenhauer, even after he was informed of its very questionable provenance.
Nearly two years ago, I told Dembski that his calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch (estimating the centered formula about a third of the way down the page) was wrong. The very same calculation is also used on page 299 to estimate the "perturbation probability for the [sic] bacterial flagellum" -- which is the centerpiece of the book. Now, this calculation isn't rocket science; the formula just involves multiplying and dividing some binomial coefficients and powers. Even an undergraduate should be able to perform it correctly. But Dembski didn't. He said this formula evaluates to approximately 10-288, whereas it's actually about 10-223.

Now it's true that nearly every biologist who has read Dembski's computation of the probability of "the [sic] bacterial flagellum" has rejected it as specious nonsense, because the formula is based on a random assembly scenario that is wildly unrealistic. But in addition to that, Dembski's calculation error makes a flagellum 1065 times less likely than the result of his own his bogus scenario.

Even stranger for someone who has Ph. D. in mathematics, Dembski claims his calculation is based on "Stirling's formula". Now Stirling's formula is a classical approximation for the factorial function, and factorials are one way to evaluate binomial coefficients. Indeed, Stirling's formula would be good for a back-of-the-envelope calculation. But there's no need to rely on approximations for doing Dembski's calculation. Any decent computer algebra system, such as Maple or Mathematica, can compute the exact value of the formula on page 297 -- or for that matter, the exact value of the quotient of sums that the formula is based on -- in a matter of microseconds.

The point isn't the sloppy calculation. The point is that Dembski was informed of this error nearly two years ago, but he has never acknowledged it or corrected it in any way. Why not? You'd think that an error of 65 orders of magnitude in the centerpiece calculation of the book would merit a correction somewhere. For that matter, why is there no errata page for No Free Lunch?

Maybe Dembski should take his own advice, given on page 51 of The Design Revolution. There he wrote: "How can a scientist keep from descending into dogmatism? The only way I know is to look oneself squarely in the mirror and continually affirm, I am a fallible human being. I may be wrong. I may be massively wrong. I may be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong--and mean it!" [emphasis in original]


Why have you not acknowledged that your mathematical "proof" on pages 152-154 of No Free Lunch that "natural causes cannot generate CSI" is flawed, since (among other errors) it claims it applies to all functions f, but actually it assumes that the function f is known to the intelligent agent in question?
This "proof" is crucial to Dembski's grandiose "Law of Conservation of Information". But it's not a proof at all. As Elsberry and I showed in our paper, the "proof" contains several errors. Another error is the conflation of "information" with Dembski's CSI and the blithe assertion that the pair (i,f) contains at least as much "information" as j, if f(i) = j. Dembski has known of these criticisms for nearly two years, but he has never addressed them.

Why have you never seriously addressed the work of artificial life researchers, who routinely find in their simulations the kinds of novelties you claim are impossible?
Artificial life researchers such as Karl Sims and Thomas Ray carry out simulations of evolution on computers, using tools such as mutation, natural selection, and recombination. They routinely find the kinds of innovations that Dembski claims are impossible. Sims, for example, in his paper "Evolving 3D Morphology and Behavior by Competition", published in Artificial Life IV, showed how simple 3-D robots could evolve very interesting and novel strategies for locomotion and fighting, even though those strategies were not programmed in by the programmers.
But Dembski never seriously addresses these findings. In The Design Revolution, the index contains an entry for Thomas Ray, but but when one looks at the indicated page (page 67), there is a discussion of John Ray, but nothing about Thomas Ray. Karl Sims is nowhere to be discussed.


Why do you continue to conflate your term "specified complexity" with Davies' use of the term, when Davies is clearly referring to events with high Kolmogorov complexity, whereas you are referring to events with low Kolmogorov complexity?
This is one of Dembski's rhetorical tricks. He sometimes calls his main concept "specified complexity" and sometimes calls it "complex specified information". He then exploits his own confusing terminology by conflating his own terms of art with well-known uses of the terms "complexity" and "information" when it is useful.
In particular, Dembski has located other occurrences of the term "specified complexity" in the literature, and then implies that his concept is the same as these other uses. But it is not. In Davies The Fifth Miracle, for example, he makes it clear on page 116 that by "complexity" he means high Kolmogorov complexity (although he attributes it to Chaitin). (What precisely Davies means by "specified" is less clear.) But for Dembski, specified complexity corresponds to low Kolmogorov complexity (see, for example, No Free Lunch, p. 144). Pretending these are synonyms when in fact they are antonyms is deceptive.


The bottom line is that The Design Revolution has little that is new. Much of the content has been lifted, in some cases word-for-word, from Dembski's previous work. His answers to questions are a masterpiece of evasion and misdirection. And he refuses to answer the really tough questions about intelligent design. The folks who endorsed this book -- from Rick Santorum to Robert George to David Berlinski -- should be ashamed of themselves.

I acknowledged being imprecise with my terms long ago.  My formula and the values have not changed from the beginning.  I am guilty of not being precise but the result is unchanged.

barney,  From the beginning I have credited Dembski as the source of the concept for Specified Complexity.  This thread was split from that one. I also referenced Dembski two posts ago.

Also the critique by Jeffery Shallit does not take issue with the topic we are discussing here or the formulas and methods of the previous thread.  He doesn't even mention the text I have been referring to "The Design Inference".  It is nothing but a Red Herring intended to discredit.  Jeff's tactics are identical to illy, When you can't find fault with the substance, then pick on word choice, inflate every minor misstatement and typo, and change the context then attack the changed context.

I can't find fault with the substance?

Really?

Where does the events/particles come from?

See my previous response.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

This is the paper that addresses Dembski's "theory".

Hmm, yeah, I didn't see an explanation for the events/particles.

I would urge you to look again at my response and see also my first two posts.  I explained it from the beginning.  My explanation and the formula has not changed.  I was cavalier with my terms.  People who are genuinely interested in an explanation will excuse such errors.  Those with an agenda such as yours generally will not.

My agenda would be of very little concern to you if you had an equation that worked.

Maybe I'm just blind, but I see no explanation for events/particles.

Perhaps you are blind then.  If you feel my equation and results don't work to estimate the maximal number of macro interactions possible in this universe, maybe you can suggest one that you feel better converges on the correct solution as you have offered nothing of substance to suggest mine is in error.  I am open to an alternate method if you have one in mind.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

I am not arguing for an "Upper Probability Limit". I don't have a formula to present, because I am not making the claim that there is some sort of "Upper Probability Limit".

You understand as well as I do that the units need to work out for the formula to be valid. The reason I don't "feel" you equation is because it is gibberish, you have presented no reason for your addition of events/particles.

Why are you being so dense?  Each event requires two particles therefore the conversion of 1 event for every two (or more) particles.  (1 event)/(2 particles) just as I indicated in the first post.

There is an upper bound to probabilistic resources for every chance event.  The existence of this limit is fundamental to solving any probability problem.   When you are told in a problem definition for example that a fair dice is rolled 10 times, the upper bound on probabilistic resources is given at ten opportunities.  When we extend the boundary conditions to the (observable) universe and allow every macro-event in the resource pool, the upper bound is less than 10^150 opportunities or interactions.

So, in other worss, you just made the events/particles up yourself?

No. that is not correct.  Don't you mean I reasoned it out? 

Or are you suggesting that two or more particles need not be involved in an interaction? Are you suggesting that chemical reaction kinetics occur without benefit of collisions between atoms and molecules?

What you just described would be particles/event.

Just as I thought, you're making it up as you go.

That would be the inverse form. 

When you say "making it up", are you suggesting that two or more particles need not be involved in an interaction? Are you suggesting that chemical reaction kinetics occur without benefit of collisions between atoms and molecules?  Are you saying that my equation is incorrect?  If so, what is correct?

When I say you're making it up, I mean that every time I show where something doesn't work out, it's all of a sudden an inverse of something we're supposed to be looking at.


BTW, an inverse is not just another 'form' of a number. That's like saying 1/5 is another 'form' of 5, and it isn't.

To say that events/particles is just another 'form' of particles/event is ludicrous.

What exactly does events/particle mean? How many 'events' is each particle a part of? Is this over the life of the particle?


Please clarify what you mean by particles. The use of Planck time implies that we'll be dealing with something that can travel at the speed of light (Plank time is derived from among other constants, C). Which is why it is used in describing the time it takes a photon to travel a Planck length.

Yet I could have sworn that just a few posts ago, you were talking about molecules and atoms again. Are you assuming that the 10^81 atoms in the observable universe (btw, we both know that this is a sample, and cannot be used in place of the population, and have valid results) can travel at the speed of light, or is there some other reason for multiplying them by the inverse of the time it takes light to travel a Planck length?

My formula and result has not once changed.  Not once.  The numbers are fixed and so is the result. Since they have not changed from the beginning and you don't claim an error in the result, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

For the result to have error (at least for us to be concerned with that error), the formula first needs to be valid. You have not shown that this is the case.

Your formula has changed, multiple times. The Planck constant, Planck time, and the inverse of Planck time are all separate things, they cannot be used interchangeably, and it is much more than a lack of precision when they are being used as interchangeable.

So, how many 'events' is a particle involved in?

I believe I have shown it to be valid.  I have already admitted that my descriptions were imprecise in describing the use of Planck time in the formula I provided.  The formula itself did not change just my description of the formula.

Each macro particle (atom) can interact and therefore be involved in an event at most once per Planck time.  Plank time is the theoretical minimal time between macro interactions since neither energy nor matter can travel faster than light in a vacuum and the Planck distance is the theoretical minimum distance over which macro-events can occur.  Therefore the inverse of Planck time is the maximal limit of the frequency of macro interactions per second.  The practical limit is much less than this value but the formula is seeking a maximal limit.

Each macro event requires two or more particles.  The maximal number of events is 1/2 event per particle.  Once again the practical average is less than this but I am after the maximal value.

Your claim that each 'particle' is only involved in 1/2 'event' is blatantly false. Considering that some 'particles' (again, these are not equivalent to atoms and any attempt to treat them as such leads to gibberish like what we've been seeing here) are energy, and thus cannot be created or destroyed, I think you'd have a very hard time showing that each one has been involved in '1/2 of an event'.

Assuming that each 'event' involves two 'particles', to assume that the inverse is valid, and use 1/2 for 'events/particles' assumes that each 'particle' is only once, half of an event. This is a boldface contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics.

Good luck with that one.

Illy, good luck with your outragous arguments.  It should be clear to all what you are doing by carelessly continuing in your errors.  If anyone else has a genuine concern over this estimate of the universal probability limit please chime in, otherwise I am done here.

Running away, eh?

It really is a shame that this thread is drawing to a close without the complete equation for the 'upper probability limit' having been presented.

I guess we at IAP will just never know how many 'events' are possible in the world.

And, for some reason, RF never mentions Independent and identically-distributed random variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_and_identically_distributed

I can't help but think this book is to RF like garlic is to a vampire:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195079515/qid=1132040773/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2107062-2575047?v=glance&s=books[/url

Not certain what your issue is with independency and probability distribution as it relates to probability limits.


Likewise I'm not certain where you think Kaufman demonstrates any error I may have made. in probability analysis.

INdeed, and since you don't know, maybe you should be more careful with your wild claims.

I should be more careful with my claims because I can't forsee the imaginations of a materialist.

Indeed, you can only see the dogma of your religous beliefs. The ones that you choose to see based on your presuppositionalism.

Still waiting to see why independence and probability distribution overturns the notion of a universal probability limit.

Much as I am still waiting to see the equation for the probability limit.

For reference, here is how to set up a proper equation.

Ex:  150 miles/3 hours = 50 miles/1 hour = 50mph

(Note that the units are equivalent on both sides)




So, again, what units and *ahem* inverses are we using now?

Post the equation, not just representations of it's parts. If you want to prove that something comes out to 10^150 'events', show us the numbers, show us how you came to that conclusion. Present the math and tell us why it's valid. Don't just keep telling people that they're hanging themselves and claiming that they don't understand [insert tough sounding physics or math concept here].

If you don't have the math to present, you should stop pretending like this is based in mathematics.

Sigh . . .

Returning to the first several posts, and noting first off a probability limit is the number of resources or opportunities for the event in question to occur.  In the case of a dice game the rules generally dictate the number of probablistic resources available for example one roll per turn in Monopoly unless you roll a double.  In this case the units are "roles of the dice per turn".

Now in looking at the number of probablistic resources available within the boundary of the (observable) universe, at a macro scale (since biological activity is exclusively non-quantum) the units are "events" or "interactions" or any other of a number of synonyms.  I will use "events".

This limit is a maximal limit and so I will consistently error on the side of more resources rather than less and will chose maximal values in each case.

1. The smallest macro paricle in this univese is an atom, the smallest atom being a hydrogen atom.  Therefore the formulation should be based on the maximal number of hydrogen atoms (all lacking neutrons) in the observable universe.  Cosmology has measured the gravitational forces and provided a maximal estimate of all energy and matter in the observable universe and when converted to hydrogen equivelents is slightly more than 10^81 hydrogen atoms.  Each atom reprents one particle: 1 particle/1 atom.  There is one universe in consideration.

( 1.4 * 10^81 atoms / 1 universe ) * ( 1 paricle / 1 atom )

Summary: 1.4 * 10^81 particles/universe

2. Each macro event in chemistry involves a collision between one or more atoms or molecules.  Again looking to the maximal number of events which will occur when the fewest particles are involved we have 2 paricles in each event or interaction.

( 2 particles / 1 event ) or the inverse, (1 event / 2 paricles )

Summary: 0.5 event/particle

3. Planck provided the basis to differentiate between macro and quantum effects in his group of related constants.  Planck distance is the maximal distance over which a QM effect occurs and therefore the minimal distance over which a macro event occurs.  In practice of course the distance is most often much much greater but again we are looking for the maximal number of events and therefore must consider the minimal distance.  The corresponding time associated with this distance is calculated by dividing by the speed of light in a vacuum (particles of course are limited to traveling no faster than the speed of light).

Planck time (sec) = Planck distance (meters) / Speed of light (meters / sec ) = 5.4 * 10^-44 sec

The maximal number of events (and therefore the highest frequency) will occur if and when all these particles are considered close packed with separation equal to one planck distance from one or more particle.  Under this circumstance, at most (likely far less than) one probablistic opportunity will occur whenever a particle has traveled one Plank distance at which time it may collide to produce an event, which will take at least one Planck time.

( 1 probablistic opportunity / event) / (5.4*10^-44 sec) = (1.9 *10^43 opportunity / event * sec )

Summary: 1.9 *10^43 opportunity/event*sec

4. The age of the universe is also estimated by cosmology.  The estimates are well documented so I will not repeat it. 

Age of (observable) Universe is no greater than (5*10^17 sec)


Putting this together in an increasingly more precise fashion despite the utter silliness of this exercise, we have:

(1.4*10^81 particles/universe) * (0.5 event/particle) * (1.9*10^43 opportunity/event*sec) * (5*10^17 sec) = 7*10^141 (probalistic) opportunity / (observable) universe

or about but certainly less than 10^150

So a particle can only interact once every Planck time unit? A Particle can't be hit in quick succession by numerous particles within one Planck time unit?

Odd, I would have thought that if there were a high concentration of particles, the interactions would overlap - and not have to wait in line as you suggest.

RF, are you sure you aren't using "new math"?

Here is a thought experiment for you.  Begin with two atoms separated by one Planck distance then figure the maximum number of collisions per Planck time for ten cycles and describe how that maximum occurs.  Then add an atom and repeat.  Continue to do this noting the maximum number of of collisions possible.  You may be disappointed to learn that in the limit, the maximum is what I claim it is.

Yes, now lets makes things more realistic. Your baby steps are frustrating your thinking skills.

Imagine 3 particles. A particle hits one, then 1/4 of a Planck time later, the other particle hits.

OMG, thats FOUR events in one Planck time! And, imagine the amount of iteractions likely in a high concentration!

Come on, RF, use your "god' given brain.  Are you seriously going to postulate that each particle has to wait in line for its turn?  Is this part of your world view?

Why must the Universe conform to your simplistic model?



edit: RF, now concentrate really hard and imagine a train of 6 particles and a particle hits the end.  Since there is no gap, they would all move at once.  How many events is that in one planck time?

That's only two events in 1.25 Planck time.  But in any case you are being too cavalier.  How can this happen?  The three atoms are each one Planck distance from the other in a line and bounded by some force that prevents them from escaping but causes no collision (a necessary boundary condition).  Let's say two approach the center at light speed while the center approaches the left.  The center hits the left one at .5 Planck time and now moves right, hitting the right one at 1 Planck time moving left now hitting the left at 1.5 Planck time and the right at 2 Planck time.  That is 2/3 collisions per Planck time per particle.  If you play this out you will find in the limit it comes to exactly one.


Sorry barney you have erred again.

No, RF, you are trying to average over time - based on particular models to make it a Just So story. Meanwhile, your UPB has been overrun at times, which you seem to ignore.

That is, you claim it would be almost 0 that this would happen, but I have shown it is likely, possible and plausible.

BTW, I didn't say they were in a line in the first example. You throw that in because you are stuck in Neolithic linear thinking.


So, do you admit, then that the UPB can be overrun in higher concentrations?  Do you see the answer to the issue I raised earlier? I hope so.

I see your error and your attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you have dug.  Put them in a triangle and you will see it makes very little difference.  The UPB is a culmination of all possible events over the entire life of the universe.  It makes no difference what distribution those events occur since they total to the same in the end.

You have not shown us anything valid on the subject of probability.  You are a false mathematician.

If it is over the life of the universe, then in more concentrated areas, the UPB doesn't apply.  So, all your complexity that is found in a remote area of the universe suddenly seems more plausible.

After all, the universe is not uniformly distributed. Or is it in your worldview?

barney, I addressed that possibility by considering that the entire universe was close packed into one concentrated area.  My assumption is the extreme of concentration.  The practical UPB is much, much  lower than 10^150 because of the reality of the expanse of the universe, the fact that macroparticles don't travel very quickly and don't collide nearly as often as they possibly can.  Never the less, I am content to  use 10^150 giving materialism far more latitude than it deserves.

But I have shown that it is meaningless.  All you need are a few rare evens and that changes the picture entirely.

Take the phrase "RF is a weasel".  If "weasel" is created, or "wea" and "sel" then the odds of the entire phrase drop dramatically.

You keep using a - forgive my candor - a breathtakingly inane straw man that asserts that each particle must be built one for one according to a process that you are totally ignorant of.

You have no idea how things happened, and in order to come close to a probability you have to know.  Talk about coins all you want - we know that there are two sides and generally how they cat - but that still doesn't predict anything.

Face it - all you have shown is that the universe appears to you to have been a rare events.

Not designed.

I posted the response to barney's last post here since it is yet another diversion

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=1150.0

Also want to remind barney I am Still waiting to see why independence and probability distribution overturns the notion of a universal probability limit as he claimed a few posts back.  I suggest he address that in the new post as well.

Can I presume that silence is golden, Illy? 

Wow, that's so big of you!

So, face it: you don't know.  What is the real number, RF?  Why round to some number that isn't even close to what you think it really is?  What purpose is that?  Your own staement make the UPB irrelevent: you are admitting that it isn't even close to what you think it is. So what if you claim it is much greater - you make lots of claims that you don't intend on backing up.  Is it greater? Who cares, right?, as long as you create a number that makes it possible for your other calculations to show that things must have been designed.

Again, you are pulling your numbers out of Dembski's ass and posting them.

10^142 rounded to 10^150 is a maximal limit 150 is an easy to remember number that I have used before and so continued with it to avoid a silly claim that I am changing the numbers.  It is a practical number that serves the purpose well and is intended to avoid needless debate about uncertainties.  Every advantage is given to material mechanisms with this number.  We can certaily use more precise numbers but it would not make any practical difference and it would be a waste of time to improve on the precision.





It is a maximal limit.  Such is the nature of maximal limits.  It gives every advantage possible to materialistic processes.


I provided the basis, the values and the equations.  How can you say with a straight face that I am not backing up my claim?

Sure, except that it doesn't represent reality. They are just numbers based on guesses of guesses.  You have no idea how life began, or the nature of particles in the beginning of the universe.

At least with your coin examples, you know that a coin has two sides.

barney, you seem so far out of your element when speaking on probability that you come across as foolish. 

Can you make a case that I have underestimated any of the parameters I used?

Can you explain how specific knowledge regarding that beginning of life figures into calculation of a probability limit for macro events in this universe?

The macro events we were discussing, the ones applicable to use of maximal probablistic resources could not occur during the beginning of the universe so specific knowledge of the begining of the universe is not relevant either.

Out of my league? As in how you are being crushed in the P&R section? ;-)

While I am horrible at math and probability its amazing that I am right and you are wrong.

I mention the origin of life because you flit back and forth when discussing ID. It is the same thing for you: Argument from Improbability. Argument from Ignorance. God of the Gaps.

Basically, you have not shown that your numbers have any real-world relationship to what we know about the formation/make-up or function of the universe - because we don't know. There are still things to discover through Fait.... er, no,... Science.

Its a shame.  With someone of your intellect you could write a book on the Mythology and Science of Klingons.

It is at one level amazing, but considering your prejudice expected, that you recognize your poor abilities yet still have convinced yourself that you are correct.

RF, are you an expert in the field of probability? How do you know you are right?

I have formal training and 23 years experience in use of probability and experimental statistics.   How much expertise is required to count the maximal number of opportunities available to act on chance?