Monkeys and type writers

[mattnunn]

ewenm said:

mattnunn said:

So your saying science is the process of removing humanity from human perception? Presumably you feel your vision of a binary non poetic universe makes you somehow rise above? I jest with you... Pay no attention.

Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?

What truths do you see us having choice between?

The human mind is capable of imagination beyond possibility, it is sadly true Melinda Messenger will not return my emails.

But, strangely, it is also undeniable that all truth was first imagined by human thought, I don't believe there is a fundemental nature to the universe outside of human experience, not particular to science just in general.

I don't believe if humans weren't here that gravity would cease to exist and all the animals would float about, but without Newton's (for sake of argument) imagination gravity would be a nameless and undiscovered, an irrelevance, the badgers would not speak of it, the shrews would not care - but we do care, the question is why do we care, is it because we're modelling the universe or just a freak coincidence we have this ability?

[wormburner]

You're in the wrong forum. You aren't talking about science at all. Our naming and discussing of gravity encompasses 0% of the science of gravity.

How can anything be capable of something beyond possiblity? This is just verbose nonsense.

Truths about the universe hit the earth in the form of waves on a constant basis. And it happens whether we gather the data and learn from it or not.

Your head isn't the centre of the universe, and your experiences of the universe are irrelevant. It is very arrogant to presume anything different.

Science knows that, so it doesn't ask you for your perceptions as part of the job-at-hand.

Edited by wormburner on Tuesday 10th July 22:22

[mattnunn]

wormburner said:

This isn't a universe of limitless possibilities, were did you get that from? All things are not certain. Only things that are, are certain. Your understanding, or your presentation of your understanding, of probability is poor.
.

If I role a dice there are six truths, they're all equally valid and certain truths, the final resting place of the dice is chance, all six certainties can't occur at once, but they're all certain outcomes and valid true states.

Likewise in the giant tumble dryer that is the universe, made of bazillions of possible atomic combinations, each one is a certainty, a valid state, equally likely to occur in the event of a re-role? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

[wormburner]

mattnunn said:

wormburner said:

This isn't a universe of limitless possibilities, were did you get that from? All things are not certain. Only things that are, are certain. Your understanding, or your presentation of your understanding, of probability is poor.
.

If I role a dice there are six truths, they're all equally valid and certain truths, the final resting place of the dice is chance, all six certainties can't occur at once, but they're all certain outcomes and valid true states.

Likewise in the giant tumble dryer that is the universe, made of bazillions of possible atomic combinations, each one is a certainty, a valid state, equally likely to occur in the event of a re-role? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Why do you use the word truth instead of possibility? There are six possibilities, individually, none are certain, yet collectively, one is.

In the case of a single roll, the certainty of only one possibility obviates the possibility of the other five.

Atomic combinations are not random and uncontrolled. Periodic table?

[thinfourth2]

monkeys in a box

https://github.com/arussell/infinite-monkey-simula...

[Use Psychology]

mattnunn said:

So this is essentially my issue with the whole idea of Theoretical physics and how I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) what's going on a CERN etc...

They appear to have generated some phillosophy of the physical world during the early part of the last century, then spent the last 40 years attempting to proove correct some theory.

The discussion on probability, with the monkeys etc, concludes all things are possible, equally likely, and that the universe is crammed with an infinite amount of information. It's my position that had Higgs come up with a theory of another type, given the resources, we'd be able to find data to match his theory amongst the meaningless chatter of the universe.

This is surely logical and backed up by your own comments, if humans give the universe it's meaning inversly the universe (which contains all equally likely possibilities) can present all solutions to any given question of it.

Science was science when Faraday and Newton were making discoveries from positions of ignorance to our perception of the workings of th universe, what CERN seem to me to have done is to pose a question of the universe and set about finding an answer, which the universe will always have, becasue it contains all answers to all questions. All is possible and equally likely.

you've got things a bit backwards. there is a model of particle physics. when it was new it explained lots of observations and predicted lots of things that hadn't been observed. scientists wanted to validate their predictive theory and therefore set out to confirm it via experiment. that's what science is: collect facts, try to explain them, use the explanation to make predictions, test the predictions with experiment.

[mattnunn]

Use Psychology said:

you've got things a bit backwards. there is a model of particle physics. when it was new it explained lots of observations and predicted lots of things that hadn't been observed.

Dear Use Psychiatry, this makes no sense, how did it explain observations that hadn't been observed?

Use Psychology said:

scientists wanted to validate their predictive theory and therefore set out to confirm it via experiment. that's what science is: collect facts, try to explain them, use the explanation to make predictions, test the predictions with experiment.

Well, the great science bods, like Newton and Faraday did infact start with an observation on the world or a phenomena, then create a hypothesis in attempt to explain it.

The "sceintific method" as our friends call it is infact an adoption of hegels dialectic approach to philosophy (or life). Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. This is how science progresses through conversation and correction ad infinitum, experimentation also being modelled on this.

My contention holds the search for the Higgs Boson was not in the model of most sientific discoveries as it didn't start with an observation.

[Gene Vincent]

mattnunn said:

My contention holds the search for the Higgs Boson was not in the model of most sientific discoveries as it didn't start with an observation.

No, your contention is wrong.

In 1958 the model was missing lots of bits including a rest-mass provider, many people set about firming up the model, in the early 60s Higgs and many others gave a more solid image of what they believed the maths said about the subject, cut to the 80s and the discovery of the W and Z bosons was solid confirmation that the Higgs field was pretty much certain.

It started with observation, but not vision, that is just a self-imposition you have as a limit of knowledge.

Maths allows a person to see much more than what the eyes give you.

It's like your imagination, almost limitless, but unlike your 'woo' it has discipline and structure and can be finally proved.

Making any judgement is a matter of knowing enough to do so, your judgement is the result of your dismissal of anything beyond your purview.

[Derek Smith]

You cannot leave people out of any scientific experiment. We don't only pollute oceans but corrupt experiments as well. Even double blinds are just the best we can do. Every experiment starts with people and ends with people. In the middle are people. It is nice to think that maths is in some way pure but it is self delusion. Once you get a ruler out, you bring people in.

[mattnunn]

Derek Smith said:

You cannot leave people out of any scientific experiment. We don't only pollute oceans but corrupt experiments as well. Even double blinds are just the best we can do. Every experiment starts with people and ends with people. In the middle are people. It is nice to think that maths is in some way pure but it is self delusion. Once you get a ruler out, you bring people in.

Gene puts the ruler on the desk and asks it "tell me what you say, ruler"

[wormburner]

But when 10,000 qualified people independently test a little chunk of science and all agree on it's rightness or wrongness, then that's helpful.

[Derek Smith]

wormburner said:

But when 10,000 qualified people independently test a little chunk of science and all agree on it's rightness or wrongness, then that's helpful.

Qualified: who checks the qualifications? If it is one person then the problem is obvious. If each has his or her own judge the . . .

Independently: even if they were brought up in a box, completely cut off from the rest of the world, as soon as they box is opened, there goes independence.

Rightness/wrongness: a quality judgement.

[wormburner]

Derek Smith said:

wormburner said:

But when 10,000 qualified people independently test a little chunk of science and all agree on it's rightness or wrongness, then that's helpful.

Qualified: who checks the qualifications? If it is one person then the problem is obvious. If each has his or her own judge the . . .

Independently: even if they were brought up in a box, completely cut off from the rest of the world, as soon as they box is opened, there goes independence.

Rightness/wrongness: a quality judgement.

Well, you're throwing everything out with the bathwater there. So, we don't know anything, because people were involved in learning it?

Peer review is the way things get checked, and double checked, and finally, confirmed. That's people, doing science.

[Derek Smith]

wormburner said:

Derek Smith said:

wormburner said:

But when 10,000 qualified people independently test a little chunk of science and all agree on it's rightness or wrongness, then that's helpful.

Qualified: who checks the qualifications? If it is one person then the problem is obvious. If each has his or her own judge the . . .

Independently: even if they were brought up in a box, completely cut off from the rest of the world, as soon as they box is opened, there goes independence.

Rightness/wrongness: a quality judgement.

Well, you're throwing everything out with the bathwater there. So, we don't know anything, because people were involved in learning it?

Peer review is the way things get checked, and double checked, and finally, confirmed. That's people, doing science.

Confirmed? Never.

In a very real sense we will never be able to predict everything.

Science allows us to predict within varying limits. That, in essence, is what it is all about. It is the test of a theory, and its downfall. Newton was spot on, wasn't he. Oh, wait a minute, no he wasn't. No matter which way you cut it, you could not predict precisely via Newton, yet the bloke was a genius. One of the most remarkable minds that ever lived.

The best that science can say is: I did this and this was the result. If other people do the same, it seems probably that the same result will occur.

Probably is, of course, the keyword. Precision is a dream that will never be realised. All science can do is limit the variations.

[MiseryStreak]

mattnunn said:

Sirs, I've been found subverting the Higgs thread into a discussion on the probability of life, and as requested, have started this thread in the hope of gaining enlightment from your collective minds.

So we all know that given an extrodinary length of time (perhaps infinite) and an huge number of type writers a team of monkeys would eventually bash out the works of William Shakespear (through a process of random chance rather than some evolutionary process it must be added), I might be right in assuming they'd be as likely to do it on the first attempt as any other attempt, so it may only take a week or so.

This analogy is often repeated as expanation of infinity and the probability of things happening being a certainty given infinite or near infinite resources, such as the cosmos has.

It's obvious therefore, that aswell as the certainity of the works of Shakespear, Mozart or Eistein being present in the universe, created by monkeys, also present in the universe is a larger amount, practically infinite amount of meaningless drivel, on the way to completeing War and Peace the monkeys must have produced a fair amount of nonsense.

So my question for the scientists especially for those that think that philosophy is dead and science can provide all the anwers, such as Prof Hawkins, is what is it that gives a certain combination of events a meaning or purpose? And why does science only concentrate on those that they see the meaning in?

I told you to return to the 'There's no Heaven...' thread to discuss religion, not start a new one based upon the analogy I used.

Firstly, you have failed to grasp the crucially important part of the hypothetical scenario, there are an infinite number of monkeys, each with their own typewriter, and infinite time to perform the key bashing. Not, a huge number, an infinite number. If you are arguing that eventually one must perform the task so the quantities needn't be infinite, so you only need the one monkey who happens to write it out from his first keystroke (please remember to give him a banana upon completion, I think he's earned it), then you are being ridiculous. I think this idea was explored in the Matrix Revolutions where the millions of Agent Smiths pick the one that is to defeat Neo. You don't know the future outcome so you can't pick the monkey.

The point of the analogy is to demonstrate the nature of infinity and that anything is possible within it. If you walk into a brick wall an infinite number of times, the probability of you walking through the wall completely unhindered is 1. The probability of walking through it an infinite number of times is also 1.

The cosmos does not have infinite resources or even near infinite. There is no near infinite. There is finite (however large) and infinite. You are thinking of it like a child would, as a really big number. Draw a tan graph, over and over, until it starts to sink in.



So, in answer to your question, which I shouldn't be answering as I am not a scientist; You. You give a certain combination of events meaning and purpose. And that meaning and purpose will not exist, in exactly the same way or at all, to anyone else.

Science attempts to understand and describe the constituents and processes of our Universe. It has nothing to do with 'meaning', there is no meaning to a quark, a molecule of nucleic acid, a tree, a star, or a supercluster in science. You apply whatever meaning you feel like, that is your job, not science's.

[MiseryStreak]

mattnunn said:

So this is essentially my issue with the whole idea of Theoretical physics and how I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) what's going on a CERN etc...

They appear to have generated some phillosophy of the physical world during the early part of the last century, then spent the last 40 years attempting to proove correct some theory.

The discussion on probability, with the monkeys etc, concludes all things are possible, equally likely, and that the universe is crammed with an infinite amount of information. It's my position that had Higgs come up with a theory of another type, given the resources, we'd be able to find data to match his theory amongst the meaningless chatter of the universe.

This is surely logical and backed up by your own comments, if humans give the universe it's meaning inversly the universe (which contains all equally likely possibilities) can present all solutions to any given question of it.

Science was science when Faraday and Newton were making discoveries from positions of ignorance to our perception of the workings of th universe, what CERN seem to me to have done is to pose a question of the universe and set about finding an answer, which the universe will always have, becasue it contains all answers to all questions. All is possible and equally likely.

I've got a question, can you be considered a troll even if you started the thread?

Just because you don't understand the Higgs mechanism, doesn't make it any less important than Newton's gravitation. In fact without mass, there is nothing for gravity to act upon (this isn't strictly true but you get the idea), so you could argue it is more important. After all, you can survive in zero gravity, you would have a job surviving if your elementary particles had no rest mass. One day, schoolchildren will know of the Graviton, and what should be called the Masson (will probably be called simply the H Boson). Newton's Laws of Gravity (which have been superseded) will be an important but archived relic. Thank Higgs people like you aren't in charge of any important decisions.

[wormburner]

Derek Smith said:

wormburner said:

Derek Smith said:

wormburner said:

But when 10,000 qualified people independently test a little chunk of science and all agree on it's rightness or wrongness, then that's helpful.

Qualified: who checks the qualifications? If it is one person then the problem is obvious. If each has his or her own judge the . . .

Independently: even if they were brought up in a box, completely cut off from the rest of the world, as soon as they box is opened, there goes independence.

Rightness/wrongness: a quality judgement.

Well, you're throwing everything out with the bathwater there. So, we don't know anything, because people were involved in learning it?

Peer review is the way things get checked, and double checked, and finally, confirmed. That's people, doing science.

Confirmed? Never.

In a very real sense we will never be able to predict everything.

Science allows us to predict within varying limits. That, in essence, is what it is all about. It is the test of a theory, and its downfall. Newton was spot on, wasn't he. Oh, wait a minute, no he wasn't. No matter which way you cut it, you could not predict precisely via Newton, yet the bloke was a genius. One of the most remarkable minds that ever lived.

The best that science can say is: I did this and this was the result. If other people do the same, it seems probably that the same result will occur.

Probably is, of course, the keyword. Precision is a dream that will never be realised. All science can do is limit the variations.

Hands up, I was incorrect to say 'confirmed' and in doing so I opened the door to that.

But I maintain that a blanket 'people' aren't the problem, if their activities are the route to the solution.

[walm]

mattnunn said:

Use Psychology said:

you've got things a bit backwards. there is a model of particle physics. when it was new it explained lots of observations and predicted lots of things that hadn't been observed.

Dear Use Psychiatry, this makes no sense, how did it explain observations that hadn't been observed?

Use Psychology said:

scientists wanted to validate their predictive theory and therefore set out to confirm it via experiment. that's what science is: collect facts, try to explain them, use the explanation to make predictions, test the predictions with experiment.

Well, the great science bods, like Newton and Faraday did infact start with an observation on the world or a phenomena, then create a hypothesis in attempt to explain it.

The "sceintific method" as our friends call it is infact an adoption of hegels dialectic approach to philosophy (or life). Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. This is how science progresses through conversation and correction ad infinitum, experimentation also being modelled on this.

My contention holds the search for the Higgs Boson was not in the model of most sientific discoveries as it didn't start with an observation.

Matt - I think you are confused about the scientific method.
Newton, Faraday and Higgs all follow it closely.

You observe something (an apple falling, say) and then come up with an explantion/theory to describe what happened.

Every (decent) theory will have predictive properties such that it can be used to predict the outcomes of future experiments. i.e.observations that haven't happened yet.
That's how you test the theory.
That's how you use the scientific method.

So Newton's gravitational theory (which explained the apple) ALSO predicted that Halley's comet would come back.
And it did.
If it hadn't his theory would have been proven wrong and would need adapting.

As with Higgs - we have particle physics explaining everything with the initial 16 elementary particles of the standard model but none of them explain mass.
OK - let's assume there is this Boson out there that gives the others their mass.
Let's go find it.

Quarks and leptons were theorised long before they were "discovered" through observation.

As for the analogy with Hegel I think it is far closer to the simple Socratic method.
You take the hypothesis and test it with an observation. If the predicted outcome doesn't happen then that's a contradiction so you need to throw out or adapt the hypothesis since we know the observation is true - it happened!

Also you keep posting that "all things are possible in the universe".
I simply disagree. There are some things that are impossible. And they aren't going to happen, no matter how long you give it.
2+2 will always equal 4.
Newton's laws of motion will apply at low velocities and for large masses.
Superluminal travel is impossible.
My wife is always right.

[Halb]

http://oostring.com/2009/12/05/monkeys/