|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 14:32:04 GMT
There is a curious connection between the term "random" and the term "conscious." If the driver of the cart becomes unconscious then it is said the cart went "randomly" down the hill, meaning without conscious direction. However it is only by conscious intervention that the course of events in nature can take anything but a strictly predetermined course and in that sense be "random." When the driver of the cart became unconscious the exact path of the cart down the hill was more strictly predetermined by the location of various rock and ruts than had the driver remained conscious to make other choices. So it is that there is no "random" agency in nature although various events can appear random like the cart going down the hill, the toss of dice, or the swirls in smoke rising from a flame all of which are exactly predetermined from the point no conscious agency no longer intervenes. We are setting aside here arguments that some events in nature such as radioactive decay are random. Whatever their exact quality, the half life of radioactive elements remains predictable for example. This becomes a problem for "evolutionists" (or rather people who extend evolution beyond living things) who must find some agency other than randomness for any construction when considering events with no life or consciousness present. Notice that the "normal distribution curve" is consistent in basic form for many measurements seeming to indicate some "random" agency in nature. With further study it can be shown that almost nothing in nature is random though. A rather good example of a normal curve can be developed by tossing a coin as I explained here. However coin tosses, dice tosses, and shuffling of cards are not entirely natural and arranged by conscious human beings. In nature there is no random agency, just wind and heat and other agencies that have limited possibilities and exact causes The normal distribution curve can however be helpful in identifying by their contrast agencies that might be involved in many measurements. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 14:42:51 GMT
Here is a simple Python program to see the curve developed by tossing a coin ten times to establish a count of tails and plotting the result of seventy-five such tests.
import random
def norm():
random.seed()
data = []
nt = 10
ns = 75
for i in range(nt+1):
data.append(0)
print
print
for j in range(ns):
tails = 0
for i in range(nt):
ri=random.randint(0,1)
tails = tails + ri
data[tails] += 1
print data
print
for j in range(nt+1):
s = str(j) + ' '
if len(s) == 3:
s = ' ' + s
for i in range(data[j]):
s += '*'
print s
print
print
And here is an example output of the program
>>> from normal import *
>>> norm()
[0, 0, 4, 7, 16, 11, 20, 10, 4, 3, 0]
0
1
2 ****
3 *******
4 ****************
5 ***********
6 ********************
7 **********
8 ****
9 ***
10
Notice this is only a very rough approximation of the normal curve (and it's turned on it's side). That does not mean the coin is not fair. In this case it simply means there have not been enough trials.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 15:03:12 GMT
Here is a program that enables you to increase the number of coin tosses per trial and the number of trials dramatically.
def norms():
random.seed()
data = []
max = 0
nt = int(raw_input('Enter number of tosses per trial less than 65: '))
if nt > 64:
nt = 64
print 'Number of tosses per trial is 64'
ns = int(raw_input('Enter number of trials: '))
for i in range(nt + 1):
data.append(0)
print
for j in range(ns):
tails = 0
for i in range(nt):
ri=random.randint(0,1)
tails = tails + ri
data[tails] += 1
if max < data[tails]:
max = data[tails]
print 'height = ' + str(max)
nf = max/50.0
ni = int(nf)+1
print 'Each marker represents ' + str(ni) + ' tosses.'
print
for p in range(nt + 1):
data[p]=data[p]/ni
max=max/ni
while max > 0:
s = " "
for p in range(nt + 1):
if data[p] >= max:
s += "*"
else:
s += " "
print s
max -= 1
p1 = ' -----------------------------------------------------------------'
p2 = ' 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 1234'
n = nt + 3
p1 = p1[:n]
p2 = p2[:n]
print p1
print p2
print
print
Using this one you can see better approximations of the normal curve, however you are still limited by the coarse graphics capabilities of a text screen. You need a much higher resolution graphics screen to see the curve well. Notice this one is not turned on it's side. Notice also that very large numbers of trials cause the scale to be reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 15:10:38 GMT
Later versions of Python use a print function "print()" rather than a print statement. So you need to put what you want to print in parentheses. So print x becomes print (x) and to print just a carriage return print().
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 15:21:02 GMT
Here is an example output of the refined program.
>>> norms()
Enter number of tosses per trial less than 65: 22
Enter number of trials: 2000
height = 346
Each marker represents 7 tosses.
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
******
******
******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
********
********
*********
*********
*********
*********
**********
***********
***********
***********
***********
*************
-----------------------
123456789 123456789 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 27, 2019 19:37:39 GMT
I'm a determinist myself, quantum physics notwithstanding. While I do not dismiss the possibility of true randomness taking place at some level, "random" means events which have no cause. But although there are events in quantum physics for which we cannot identify a cause, that does not mean they do not have a cause. Heissenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not change that. They may well be completely random, but we have no way of saying that for certain. And personally I think there is a cause for everything, even if the answer is found in infinite regress.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 27, 2019 20:07:35 GMT
Mathematics has produced a simple and easy to understand definition of randomness: Kolmogorov randomness defines a string (usually of bits) as being random if and only if it is shorter than any computer program that can produce that string.
It also bears a relationship with entropy. Systems with high entropy can be considered to have much more randomness that ones with low entropy, because the high entropy systems have so many more states.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2019 20:43:21 GMT
I think random is when two people ride a bicycle and one falls off for no reason!
Hint:You can usually tell which one by the swearing and/or blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 21:42:25 GMT
Mathematics has produced a simple and easy to understand definition of randomness: Kolmogorov randomness defines a string (usually of bits) as being random if and only if it is shorter than any computer program that can produce that string. It also bears a relationship with entropy. Systems with high entropy can be considered to have much more randomness that ones with low entropy, because the high entropy systems have so many more states. I'm sorry I am not seeing any use for the Kolmogorov definition. Are there examples you can relate to Chevrolet Equinoxes or Pontiac Solstices? The "randomness" which is synonymous with entropy is defined by its unavailability to do work. That is a useful definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2019 21:55:54 GMT
I'm a determinist myself, quantum physics notwithstanding. While I do not dismiss the possibility of true randomness taking place at some level, "random" means events which have no cause. But although there are events in quantum physics for which we cannot identify a cause, that does not mean they do not have a cause. Heissenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not change that. They may well be completely random, but we have no way of saying that for certain. And personally I think there is a cause for everything, even if the answer is found in infinite regress. Evidence for interventions by unknown agencies can be exceedingly rare whether they be angels, demons or more "scientific" phenomena. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2019 22:14:33 GMT
I'm a determinist myself, quantum physics notwithstanding. While I do not dismiss the possibility of true randomness taking place at some level, "random" means events which have no cause. But although there are events in quantum physics for which we cannot identify a cause, that does not mean they do not have a cause. Heissenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not change that. They may well be completely random, but we have no way of saying that for certain. And personally I think there is a cause for everything, even if the answer is found in infinite regress. Evidence for interventions by unknown agencies can be exceedingly rare whether they be angels, demons or more "scientific" phenomena. ...in fact non-existent! |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 27, 2019 23:29:09 GMT
"This becomes a problem for "evolutionists" (or rather people who extend evolution beyond living things) who must find some agency other than randomness for any construction when considering events with no life or consciousness present."
I don't see it as a problem. The "agency" is an almost infinte number of factors that influence each event such that outcomes are not predictable and appear random...and for all intents and purposes at the classical physics level one can summarize all those nearly infinite factors and call the outcome random with a tendency toward an average like your die roll or coin flip. So while I don't necessarily agree that anything in nature happens randomly, a process like evolution can, from a pragmatic standpoint, depend on "random" mutations with the winnowing influence of natural selection that favors beneficial mutations, permits neutral mutations and weeds out non-beneficial mutations. The mutations probably aren't actually random, but the trillions and trillions of factors that go into a mutation occurring make it essentially random.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2019 1:50:39 GMT
"This becomes a problem for "evolutionists" (or rather people who extend evolution beyond living things) who must find some agency other than randomness for any construction when considering events with no life or consciousness present."
I don't see it as a problem. The "agency" is an almost infinte number of factors that influence each event such that outcomes are not predictable and appear random...and for all intents and purposes at the classical physics level one can summarize all those nearly infinite factors and call the outcome random with a tendency toward an average like your die roll or coin flip. So while I don't necessarily agree that anything in nature happens randomly, a process like evolution can, from a pragmatic standpoint, depend on "random" mutations with the winnowing influence of natural selection that favors beneficial mutations, permits neutral mutations and weeds out non-beneficial mutations. The mutations probably aren't actually random, but the trillions and trillions of factors that go into a mutation occurring make it essentially random.
I believe you are neglecting the results of the experiments on shorter lengths of RNA chains. They do not assemble chains longer than about 40 links. The logical explanation is that the chains shorter than 40 have a competitive advantage over the chains that might get longer briefly. They break apart the longer chains. What really matters is that the chains do need to do something more constructive now. The pattern of the present is the pattern of the future. Whatever agencies are involved now are doing whatever it is they will do now or in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 28, 2019 11:05:49 GMT
"This becomes a problem for "evolutionists" (or rather people who extend evolution beyond living things) who must find some agency other than randomness for any construction when considering events with no life or consciousness present."
I don't see it as a problem. The "agency" is an almost infinte number of factors that influence each event such that outcomes are not predictable and appear random...and for all intents and purposes at the classical physics level one can summarize all those nearly infinite factors and call the outcome random with a tendency toward an average like your die roll or coin flip. So while I don't necessarily agree that anything in nature happens randomly, a process like evolution can, from a pragmatic standpoint, depend on "random" mutations with the winnowing influence of natural selection that favors beneficial mutations, permits neutral mutations and weeds out non-beneficial mutations. The mutations probably aren't actually random, but the trillions and trillions of factors that go into a mutation occurring make it essentially random.
I believe you are neglecting the results of the experiments on shorter lengths of RNA chains. They do not assemble chains longer than about 40 links. The logical explanation is that the chains shorter than 40 have a competitive advantage over the chains that might get longer briefly. They break apart the longer chains. What really matters is that the chains do need to do something more constructive now. The pattern of the present is the pattern of the future. Whatever agencies are involved now are doing whatever it is they will do now or in the future. "experiments on shorter lengths of RNA chains." Did you reference these experiments? What is the significance of what you think these experiments show...that long chain molecules, such as RNA, could never form "naturally" and must only occur due to divine intervention?
" What really matters is that the chains do need to do something more constructive now. " Are you suggesting that any time an RNA chain is longer than ~40 molecules it represents a direct divine intervention tantamount to a miracle? So life in general is just one long God caused miracle, with God essentially performing untold trillions of ongoing miracles inside each animal and plant cell just to keep them alive? Is this the best God could do? Create matter/energy so poorly designed that HE has to keep anything of use going perpetually? Does he have to artificially keep stars burning and even keep water molecules together in a perpetual series of miracles everywhere on earth and throughout the universe where ever water occurs?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 28, 2019 11:44:35 GMT
Did you reference these experiments? What is the significance of what you think these experiments show...that long chain molecules, such as RNA, could never form "naturally" and must only occur due to divine intervention?
Arlon has never backed up his bullshit claims with citations from the scientific literature. He's a clown. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2019 12:59:11 GMT
I believe you are neglecting the results of the experiments on shorter lengths of RNA chains. They do not assemble chains longer than about 40 links. The logical explanation is that the chains shorter than 40 have a competitive advantage over the chains that might get longer briefly. They break apart the longer chains. What really matters is that the chains do need to do something more constructive now. The pattern of the present is the pattern of the future. Whatever agencies are involved now are doing whatever it is they will do now or in the future. "experiments on shorter lengths of RNA chains." Did you reference these experiments? What is the significance of what you think these experiments show...that long chain molecules, such as RNA, could never form "naturally" and must only occur due to divine intervention?
" What really matters is that the chains do need to do something more constructive now. " Are you suggesting that any time an RNA chain is longer than ~40 molecules it represents a direct divine intervention tantamount to a miracle? So life in general is just one long God caused miracle, with God essentially performing untold trillions of ongoing miracles inside each animal and plant cell just to keep them alive? Is this the best God could do? Create matter/energy so poorly designed that HE has to keep anything of use going perpetually? Does he have to artificially keep stars burning and even keep water molecules together in a perpetual series of miracles everywhere on earth and throughout the universe where ever water occurs?
After living things have been assembled they have strategies for protection against problems in the environment and strategies for collecting and utilizing energy to duplicate very long (!) chains of RNA and no further intelligent designer is required. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2019 13:11:10 GMT
Did you reference these experiments? What is the significance of what you think these experiments show...that long chain molecules, such as RNA, could never form "naturally" and must only occur due to divine intervention?
Arlon Faustus5 has never backed up his bullshit claims with citations from the scientific literature. He's a clown. Fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 28, 2019 13:25:13 GMT
Arlon Faustus5 has never backed up his bullshit claims with citations from the scientific literature. He's a clown. Fixed. I make citations all the time, fuckwit. Does lying make you hard or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2019 13:32:56 GMT
I make citations all the time, [ ... ... ... ] < things you should be cited for For example? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 28, 2019 13:47:32 GMT
|
|
