cypress

As I said before there are several researchers who claim to show that much of the modern warming (1800-2003) is natural and also due to cyclical oscillations. If you start a new thread, I will walk you through it. If you are looking for evidence to explain the full extent of modern warming including uncertainties then I will take a pass as it would be a fools game to try to explain everything. In the new thread, please make your expectations clear so we don't get into a shouting mach over what you asked for.

Well, for one thing heat usually flows from areas of high entropy to areas of low entropy.

Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy).

Also it seems you took the term "molecular entropy" and invented your own definition that is convenient for your argument but doesn't really appear in any real physics.

Wrong again Skeptic. You don't have any experience with mass and heat transfer principles I take it. Here is a reference that addresses diffusion of heat and molecular diffusion. Carslaw, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, 1959.

But you did pretty good considering your kind never was good with thermodynamics. Of course this is where you will mention how wrong I am or ignore me completely, rather than trying to show you were right by referencing a source.

Ouch, Skeptic now you are zero for three. Have a look at the reference above. Also Chemical Engineers are generally expert at thermodynamics, particularly when one works with compressible gasses for 20 years.

Yes, speaking of red herrings, the whole thread is based off a red herring (everyone agrees that the odds of life forming by chance alone are ridiculous).

Excellent my job is done here. Finally we agree that the odds of life forming by chance alone is unreasonable. Thank you for that admission.

However I decided to take that red herring and make myself a delicious fish dinner. The crux of my argument is that there is a significant chance that the universe is infinite. As I demonstrated, an infinite universe negates any tininess of probability of life forming.

Speculation cannot substitute for probabilistic resources and probabilistic resources that do not act on an event can't improve the odds of that event. You have demonstrated nothing. The balance of your argument is as vacuous as the errors you have already displayed. It is enough that now you agree life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. Thanks for that.

Therefore, the probability of life forming by chance alone is the greater of the chance of the universe being infinite and the chance of life forming by entirely chance alone given a finite universe. So far, cypress focuses on the unimaginably smaller and completely irrelevant probability of life forming entirely by chance alone.

Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation.

Yes, and I cited a source to support my claim

A source that you misinterpreted and is wrongly applied is of very little help. I described your errors previously.

(unlike you, who have just kept claiming some kind of magical non-existent unreferenced observation contradicts an infinite universe). Remember, if you are claiming that the probability of life arising by chance alone is 10^-41,000, then you are also claiming the probability that the universe is infinite is also less than 10^-41,000

More nonsense. The observable universe is finite. Evidence exists that it had a beginning and there is no evidence available to indicate directly what lies beyond the observable universe. The inflation model allows for speculation about an infinite universe but it is just so. I don't think I need a reference to describe the various cosmology models. Nearly any credible discussion of cosmology will confirm what I just said and there are thousands of them on the web, have a look if you wish.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cosmology+models&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I never claimed that the universe is infinite -- I claimed that it could be and if it was then your odds of life forming are 1 and the probability per unit whatever is meaningless. Beyond that I also cited a source that puts the universe as probably being flat.

Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done.

My critiques are overwhelmingly correct, it's you proselytizing a totally outdated and falsified world view that is suffering. Your constant appeals to an authority that is not considered an authority by anyone but creationists is sad, my link was an attempt to show how flawed your appeals to Hoyle really were. You have been totally dishonest in this from the very beginning, from the time you straw-manned the discussion by being dishonest about what you wanted to discuss to the pitiful attempts at appeals to an authority that was never really an authority to begin with. This is your dog and pony show but it is sadly a one trick pony that everyone has seen multiple times and is no longer much of a show.

I don't see anything relevant to the discussion here. In addition your bias is starting to show. Please remember that it was Skeptic who claimed that life from non-life by chance alone was a reasonable position. I have always maintained it was not. My use of Hoyle was intended to make a point that even someone many naturalists seem to despise can be correct (about life from non-life being unreasonable) once in a while. Does it bother you that the two of you agree on this point?

You're saying that the most accurately and extensively tested theories we have are full of uncertainty? o.O

No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments. Do you have anything relative to the topic to contribute?

Baloney. There are few concepts in science that do not have their detractors. You don't have to search outside of this forum to find those who doubt relativity or quantum mechanics. When you have an ideological or other influence, it's not hard to find examples of manufactured controversy. A fine and bountiful example is creationism.

Yet all of these examples include a fair degree of uncertainty. Topics that are uncertain enjoy detractors. Those with political, moral and religious influences are all the more.

No, there are many examples of manufactured controversy, like "it stopped warming in 1998" and "it snowed here today and I can build an igloo"

 

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Cherry picking a few manufactured issues does not make the entire issue manufactured. One can play this game of both sides of this issue. I can easily provide a list of manufactured alarmist claims too.

Well, you really don't have much choice; this is a science site and its expected of you. I wouldn't think you'd want people to think you posted controversial material just to stir things up, with no intention of engaging in honest, civil debate. There's a word for that.

I think I have a range of choices. The previous poster said the he has not seen any evidence that should cause someone to be skeptical. I provided a rationale some skeptics use to support their position so my only obligation is to show that skeptics make this argument since this was my only claim. You asked me to support that the skeptics are correct in their claim; something beyond my response and I wanted to be sure I was not wasting my time. Looks like I made the right choice not to go off on a wild goose chase.

Perhaps that's because no abiogenesis theory claims 'life by chance alone'.

At one time it was quite popular. Even now there are supporters. see Koonin, "The Cosmological Model".

Why would they provide an estimate of a strawman?

Beats me, perhaps you should ask Koonin, or why Skeptic wanted to advocate for this scenario, because as I said, I do not accept it.

Best-offered? Hardly.

Sounds like an opinion to me. I have not seen any better. Most Origin of Life researchers reject life by chance alone and don't even attempt to provide an estimate. I reject it also but Skeptic wanted to make an argument for it thus the thread. I would be surprised if you advocate Life by chance alone.

Or blatant denial of reality.

Reality is easy to support and describe. If AGW was reality it would be clear and there would be no controversy. No, AGW is a difficult and complex idea without clear support.

The uncertainty here is largely manufactured.

An opinion of yours no doubt.

You have a credible source for this claim, I trust.

Do you doubt it? Before I go through the trouble of putting together an argument, please tell me the number you think is credible and also define what it means to be credible because if you reject my material out of hand, it would be a waste of time for me to hunt it up, right?

Yes life from non-life in steps would require many successful outcomes that have a low-chance of occurring. However, if the number of trails is large the events would still occur.

Indeed, however in this analysis we have our best offered probability at 1 in 10^41000 and fewer than 10^140 total trials possible. this leaves us thousands and thousands of orders of magnitude short. In this case the number of trials is miniscule compared to the probability. The number is unimaginably small.

The quoted material lacks context. It speaks of numbers in the range of 10^40 for a hypothetical peptide self replicator but that is a far cry from a biological system. Ignoring the whole picture to make it seem plausible does not help us discover truth. It is not even in the same ballpark. when one pieces in a more complete picture the probability approaches the number Hoyle uses for any hypothetical path.

Also I am still not seeing how this would violate the second law, as the Earth is not a closed system.

No I am not speak of a closed system. I speak of imported order so I am allowing for an open system.

It seems to me that you are just throwing the term "entropy" without any real reason.

In an open system do you believe entropy of that open system can decrease without import of a source of order? If so, please offer an example because this would be a violation of the law. Entropy is a measure of the probability state of systems influenced by random processes. The law states that systems acted upon by random events migrate to the highest probability state over time and in proportion to the resources available. It does not matter if the system is open or closed, only the form of the state equations change.

When speaking of natural systems influenced by random events, it is inevitable that one must consider entropy.

Cypress, Emilio, so you guys are going with Hoyle's Fallacy?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

Any error Hoyle may have made would have to be in context with the argument that it supports. Newtonian physics is erroneous but it is still very useful for certain purposes. Let's take a look at the claimed errors and see if they apply to this case:

These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

It is the best information we have about what it takes to construct and operate a biological system. If this is a fallacy then one would be able to offer a better set of components required for minimal biological activity. It is easy to suggest that something is wrong when nobody knows what is "right". Furthermore we now know a great deal about what it means to be biologically active and to suggest that ancient systems should be different ignores the knowledge we do have.

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

At the time that Hoyle did his analysis he presumed there were limited fixed sequences. Douglas Axe and several others have since confirmed this. For a protein sequence 150 acids in length, about 1 in 10^74 are capable of forming stable tertiary structures and active binding sites required to be biologically active. The number drops as the size grows.

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Nonsense. The analysis is independent of timing or sequence.

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

Nonsense. Please demonstrate the misunderstanding. These are empty words. Accusation without substance.

They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]

Again Douglas Axe disposed of this criticism with his work on what it means to have stable and functional biological components. At the time of Hoyle's work, this argument may have been valid, however today it is not.

Good luck with that

Your critiques are doing very poorly moontanman. Stay focused on the areas Cap'n and Skeptic address, they are at least looking at the weaker and easier to attack arguments.

People want to discredit global warming because of the potential economic impacts of mitigation. Proper science comes from criticism of beliefs,, but it is only useful is proper evidence is supplied. To date I have still not come across one skeptic who has been able to provide evidence that natural phenomena is causing the modern warming.

Plus, this goes beyond people's love of the environment and the outdoors,, being proper custodians of the planet is essential to our very survival..

Controversial ideas require uncertainty in order for two sides to keep an argument going. Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming. Even if 100% of the unaccounted for energy rise is caused indirectly by humans, behavior change is not a particularly good idea.

Here's my question if you boil water then convert it to gas and then convert it back to water will it redoes any other traces of elements in the water?

After doing the above can the water be consumed?

Well yes you can. This is how fresh rain water free of minerals is deposited in the mountains and it is the principle behind distillation.

My theory:

boiling water to make H2O become it's gashes form then having the gas go throw a glass pipe and past a portion of the pipe witch has a close to frozen area allowing the water to the slowly become a liquid will greatly redoes other elements that are found in water.   

 

I haven't tested the theory, so some informaton on this basic topic would realy help.

You needn't test, it you have just reinvented the still, or distillation device. It works like a charm.

First the odds you keep citing are completely bogus from the start. As they assume that all the needed enzymes synthesized in one trial. The theory of biogenesis by no means thinks that life formed in one single event. It states that over uncountable interactions the necessary components came together to form life. The idea that life came out of a single event, and the odds you give of it occurring, [math]10^{-41000}[/math], is more in line with intelligent design than it is with biogenesis.

Nonsense. they are treated as combinatorial events that can happen over any time period and most any order, with any number of precursor events.

Again where does physics state that an event is unlikely to occur will not occur at all.

Observation of ordered systems acted on by random processes confirms that on average these systems move to high probability states thus systems that would require a steady supply of low probability outcomes (life from non-life by chance alone perhaps unless it was a single event which you have rejected) does not occur and would violate the physical principles that drive systems to low order high entropy states.

Which physical laws? The Second Law of thermodynamics certainly doesn't require this.

Huh? The second law of thermodynamics sets the direction of flow of order from high to low in the absence of an external driver for systems that proceed by random processes. Brownian motion is a random process that drives heat transfer and chemic processes and molecular diffusion. The physical law constrains the average heat energy flux to flow from low entropy areas to high entropy areas and in the process increases total entropy of the system. Analogs exist for molecular entropy and information entropy. This behavior is observed to be true for all similar systems involving random processes.

It is possible that I misspoke somewhere though I doubt it, so please explain exactly where entropy principles do not require any aspect of what I described in any of my posts.

I very clearly quoted the portion of your post I was referring to. It was the part where you didn't identify why you objected, but rather countered that I am wrong.

It's not that I don't like them. They simply apply to other situations. They are red herring arguments. I did not say you are wrong. I actually think you are more often correct, but that you simply do not address the topic at hand. This is why I call them red herrings. some are arguments about formation of amino acids but Hoyle stipulates availability of all required amino acids. Others deal with pre-biotic conditions, but again the analysis grants that for tjis analysis conditions are taken to be as required. In this way these items are not relevant to the points.

Precursors of what level? One could state that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are "precursors," or one could state that certain organic compounds already available are precursors.

 

 

You'll have to provide a law of thermodynamics that requires "molecular order" first. The Second Law certainly doesn't.

In molecular diffusion, entropy applies to concentration gradients independent of thermal entropy. Thermodynamics is the most common application of entropy laws but not the only application. Information entropy has also been widely validated, particularly as it applies to cosmological events, but also when dealing with information encoded by material objects transcribe on neutral carriers. Writing on a page is an example. Digital codes imbedded into electronic carriers is another. Nucleotide bases on a ribose carrier is a third.

AzurePhoenix has given examples of order appearing without a "source."

Sorry no. One can easily demonstrate that crystallization forms by deterministic processes once brownian motion provides the random event suitable for ordering. This is an isetropic event with respect to molecular entropy. The before and after states are equivalent. there is no net increase in molecular order since the probability of forming the crystal is 1.

A "source" of low entropy? What do you think entropy is, some sort of mystical goo?

It is a vernacular that seems to describe the situation even if it is not completely accurate. Forgive my prose unless you truely do not understand what I meant by this.

No, you don't need a "source." The tube cannot be considered in isolation. The net entropy of the system increases. I don't have to find a spot of exceedingly low entropy and introduce it to the system. I just have to make the system increase in entropy one way or another.

Systems degrade and increase entropy without intervention. However one does require a source of higher order in order to decrease the entropy of the system. To claim that entropy drops without a source of higher order is equivalent to thumbing your nose at physical laws.

Perhaps you could explain, rather than merely dismissing arguments you don't like.

I read my posts and truly see them as explanations. If you would more clearly identify where you do not understand, rather than counter that I am wrong, I may be able to focus on that issue rather than just provide a retort.

Why's that?

 

As swansont has explained, if I start with the necessary precursors to what I want, I have significantly improved odds of creating what I want, compared with starting with completely random molecules.

Of course, but the number Hoyle used stipulated availability of all necessary precursors so it is irrelevant to this discussion as I said before.

Ahem.

 

Entropy increases in a closed system. Earth, or even any lifeform, is not a closed system. Many interactions occur between objects on Earth's surface, and between Earth and other astronomical bodies. (Like sunlight.)

I am aware that the earth is not a closed system. Please note that my statement does not stipulate a closed system. I allow for import of any resource but one must identify a resource that provides molecular order. The thermal energy from the sun does not seem to be a source of molecular order. If you can show that it does provide molecular order then you will have demonstrated that my statement is false.

Entropy is allowed to increase in a test-tube in my lab if I'm allowed to interfere with the test-tube as much as I want. But the global entropy of the entire system will increase, yes.

Of course, but in order for information entropy or molecular entropy to act on the contents of the tube you must have a source of low entropy. What and where in natural systems is this source?

Interestingly, many models of abiogenesis focus on undersea vents rich in organic compounds. No atmosphere required.

 

And who says the first life forms were dependent on oxygen? Quite a few modern life forms aren't.

 

Or a change in the conditions of the experiment.

Right, these are all red herring issues some of which are simply incorrect and others that don't bear on the subject at hand.

So cypress even though you told me you didn't want to discuss reality and that I should start my own thread if i wanted to discuss how things really work all you really wanted to do was assert your own off base version of reality, not discuss the probabilities out of context as you tried to claim. As i said earlier your contention of the odds is totally bogus. read the following closely, its how statistics and odds really work, not the bogus assertions you are trying to back because they support your world view of creationism.

I have a worldview that is open minded about how life arose from non-life. I do note that at this time the evidence points more strongly to intervention from a mind but I would like to think there is a natural explanation that is consistent with the evidence and has a causally adequate explanation.

Now let's see if I am off base about probability.

If you buy a lottery ticket, in a lottery where the odds are 1,000,000 to 1 and 1,000,000 tickets are sold your odds of winning is 1,000,000 to 1 but the odds that some one will will is 1 to 1,

Only if the physics of the lottery game were set up to guarantee a winner (a net sum game) would this be true. Life by chance alone is not a net sum game. One error on your part, false analogy. One indication that it is you who is off base.

even on one planet your odds, if they were real which they are not, would not be some outrageous number because it is totally disingenuous to say that each variable is only tried once, the truth is that over the course of millions of years the number of tries out weighs the long odds, just like millions of lottery tickets being sold on the early Earth millions if not billions of "tickets' were being sold every second for millions of years so even very long odds events will take place many times.

I agree with your statement that each variable can be tried repeatedly. This is why I talked about probabilistic resources. These resources among other things, include the number of opportunities to achieve intermediate and final outcomes. I included this factor and discussed it thoroughly. Now two indications that you are off base, you are not doing well with your argument.

the absolute truth is that your assertion that the odds are long to begin with is simply not true, a source of energy does drive the simple toward the complex with no outside creator influence,

Were this correct and the "absolute truth" you claim it is then you would be able to offer a real observed example of these truths. First off, the long odds. Please offer a more realistic scenario in contrast to my "false" (which I take to mean unrealistic, since I agree that life did not happen by chance alone) scenario involving generation of the minimal set of functional components of life followed by random assembly of these components that does not involve deterministic assembly since this is a chance only discussion. Second provide a real example where energy without any source of molecular order does drive simple molecular order to more complex (lower entropy) molecular order. Please keep in mind that deterministic processes are generally isentropic. I predict you will fail on both counts.

now don't bullshit me and say a creator "God" is not what you are asserting because we all know that is exactly what you are asserting

I addressed this above where I note that the current evidence indicates an intelligent agent (a mind) was involved. I do note however that the evidence does not allow us to determine the character of this agent so describing it as some "God" seems unwarranted.

and the assertion has been shown to be unnecessary so many times it begins to look just like the bogus odds of 1/10^41,000,000, 000 or what ever it was....

It is quite impossible to show that a particular contributing cause for the universe is unnecessary when one cannot show how it actually or even could have formed without this cause. Please start a new thread on this if you disagree and I will be happy to show you your error there too.

You contention needs to be backed up, you made it now back it up don't try to make us follow some bullshit special conditions that only occur in your own personal universe, show the evidence from this reality....

My contention is that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position. I have backed it up by refuting the areas you and others claim I have made errors. In your case especially, the errors are on you. I do however appreciate the challenges and the discussion.

The evidence from this reality is that events do not violate the laws of entropy. Our observations and uniform experience confirms this. In addition, observation and uniform experience confirms that probabilistic resources that do not act on an event cannot influence the outcome. I am standing on firm ground here. Those who dispute these offer speculations as opposed to observation and experience.

Finally, Hoyle's analysis provides the best case hypothetical scenario for life from non-life by chance alone. Nobody has offered a better one with improved odds.

You are the one displaying a fundamental lack understanding cypress, your failure to see that doesn't make you correct, as I said earlier you made the claims now give us some evidence or stop making the assertion!

The evidence for my claim that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position is before us. Please don't change my claim into something it is not. I have no intention here of making the claim that some "God" had to have created life.

This is completely and utterly false! Did you read my previous post? I am assuming not because if you had you would know that this statement is completely wrong. So go scroll up the page read the peer-reviewed published article I posted, and then show me how your statement makes any sense what so ever.

A couple of peer reviewed articles does not change the argument much. There is evidence suggesting a range of early atmospheres and nothing definitive. But even if we stipulate that all required amino acids were plentiful the primary issues have nothing to do with availability of amino acids so it changes nothing.

BTW, what does physics have anything to do with abiogenesis? As far as I know there is no physic's theorem that says life from non life is impossible.

I would hope not. At one time life did not exist and now it does. The question is how? Physics does help us with this question though by eliminating explanations that lack causal adequacy. Life by chance alone is eliminated by the physical constraints of probability and entropy.

You realize that yet again your statistic means absloutely nothing without any context. Also although the odds you give are low they are not impossible. In fact its is possible that it could occur on the first, or the second, or the third trial. It is good to know that just because something has a low probability of occurring does not mean that it cannot occur early in the trials.

Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of entropy and what it means to have improbable events occur that generate low entropy systems from higher entropy systems. It may be true that improbable events that are entropy neutral occur (though I am skeptical even of this) however improbable events that generate low entropy without an external source would overturn the physical law. Are you suggesting that these laws are incorrect?

Thanks skeptic. I don't know I have really gone blank and totally confused. So in this solution there are equal amount of base and acid. So how can you just measure the concentration of H+ and say the solution is acidic, don't you have to take account how much base is there in the solution. If there is equal amount of acid and base in a solution shouldn't it be neutral. I know I have some major misunderstanding. Thanks

In addition to what the others have said, note that HCO₃^-1 is not an equal base... It is actually a weak acid that further dissociates a bit to provide a bit more H+ as Skeptic indicated. Think of it this way, If it were a base of equal strength to the H+ acid, it would associate all the H+ it could until it was in solution as H₂CO₃.

In one article they talk about resources on the order of 10^40 to 10^50 to generate a protein by chance but they never tell you the protein's total ratio of workable to non-workable combinations is on the order of 1 in 10^168 and less so they are short resources by a factor of ~10^120. Likewise the other articles conceal the actual challenges behind attractive sounding speculations. They are designed to fool the uncritical thinker into believing that they have done a proper scientific and mathematical analysis when in reality it is nothing more that imagination. It is nearly meaningless that one can generate some amino acids since the acids cannot self assemble into functional components. If anybody here believes that the articles provide anything compelling and does think that life by chance alone is realistic, please bring the article again so we can take it point by point. Skeptic and Cap'n are at least on the right track to recognize that the real challenge for life by chance alone is to bring in resources to shore up the odds.

Those who think that order can come from disorder without a source of even higher order continue to ignore a fundamental reality of the physical laws of our universe. Deterministic processes provide efficient mechanisms to capture and conserve entropy (but not create new order) when a random process imports that preexisting order. This is how crystals are formed without decreasing net entropy. The water cycle on earth is a good example of a reversible cycle that never accumulates net molecular entropy. So far as I know crystals do not accumulate any information and thus do not reduce information entropy at all.

Those who attempt to eliminate the long odds of life by chance alone by noting that "life happened" therefore the overall probability had to be close to 1 are conflating all the ways life from non-life could have occurred, including chance alone, necessity alone, chance and necessity, and seeding/design. This post is about chance alone. Perhaps later we can discuss the more realistic possibilities in another thread.

With respect to the estimated odds of life from non-life at less than 1 in 10^41000, That number is the combinatorial probability of a minimal set of all the known precursor systems being generated and brought together in no particular sequence or time frame by random processes. The analysis did not include the odds that a biologically active system could then be assembled from these components so the odds are in reality much much lower than even this number. Cap'n points out that through repeated tries one can improve the odds so one must include the "tries" or probabilistic resources in the analysis. The observable universe contains about 10^81 protons and is bout 15 billion years old. From this we get fewer than 10^142 total macro events having ever occurred in the observable universe. The earth has far far fewer resources available than this and thus we are thousands of orders of magnitude short of the resources required.

Skeptic wishes to bring in more resources by hypothesizing an infinite universe with infinite mass. Trouble is that most infinite universe scenarios are contradicted by observation, the ones that are not contradicted are pure speculation since they enjoy no evidence for the part of the speculation that allows for an infinite past universe. An equally significant issue is that these additional resources, if they do exist, cannot influence the probability of life from non-life on earth. This is the point Emilio Primo properly makes. It is significant because entropy laws preclude extraordinarily low probability events from occurring that exceed the availability of the resources to allow them to occur. To counter Emilio's argument one would have to show that the law of entropy is false.

So how would this effect the probability of an outcome?

 

If I gave 1 person a six sided die, and then told him to roll a six his odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If I then gave 1 billion people a six sided dice a told each to roll a six, the outcome for each person is still 1/6. That probability does not change just because more people are now rolling the dice or because more attempts are being made. The chances for each person is still exactly the same for rolling a six with a six sided die, as it is for one person... Whether it be many or be few... 1/6

Right. Although mathematics allows us to construct combinatorial probabilities of independent events and although the results of the constructs of these model the combinations, the results of the these constructs are still artificial. So there is no analog in reality to suggest that non-interacting resources do influence the ability of improbable events to actually happen. As a point of fact, it is not clear that any real random events have outcomes with probabilities lower than what would be expected by applying just the resources directly acting on the event. This observation is consistent with what one can conclude from the laws of entropy.

What thermodynamics requires for order to increase is simply an outside source of energy. We have one of those.

Thermal entropy indeed requires and outside source of thermal order (energy), molecular entropy requires an outside source of molecular order (coherent ordered systems), and information entropy requires an outside source of information. There is no indication that thermal energy is able to generate molecular or informational order.

This only shows your ignorance about models of the universe. If you had read my earlier post #4 in this thread, you would know by now that it is the same model that is used to predict a finite universe, that predicts an infinite universe as well. The only difference is a variable in the very same equation -- and if you had followed the link, you would see that it is you who is choosing to disregard data to choose the finite universe. The current best estimate is a flat universe, which is infinite.

I read it, and I understood the claims. A flat universe is theoretically eternal (not the same as infinite) into the future, but it is not infinite in the past and is not infinite with respect to mass. Only the models that provide for infinite mass at the time of the event we are considering can influence outcomes. Please reread my posts where I made both of those distinctions.

And on top of that, there are other, independent, models of the universe that could result in the universe being infinite in other ways. These increase the chance of the universe being infinite still further.

The ability to invent independent models alone does not improve probability of past events.

I will return to your other points in a bit.

First off the idea that life is random process is totally bogus,

I agree, but others do not. this thread is intended to have a discussion with those who do not agree and this is why I suggested you start a new post. Not that you were trying to hijack the thread, I think this is another topic that is worthy of discussion on its own.

every bit as bogus as th idea that order cannot arise from chaos. You continuously stating other wise will not change reality,

Your link relies on a very precise and altogether different definition of "chaotic system" then what you described as "chaos". No sorry there is no objective evidence to suggest that order arises from disorder (what you called chaos). Entropy laws require that order requires equal or higher ordered sources. To claim otherwise is to thumb your nose at thermodynamics.

I did say that if indeed your premise was true then life would be unlikely to happen, of courts the fact that it did happen at least once is obvious.

Yes and how it happened is the question at hand. This thread is intended to investigate chance alone.

I was not trying to hijack your thread, I was trying to participate in the only way I know how by stating an observable truth, two in this case.

Yes I know you were not. I have read many of your posts and I find them always relevant. Sorry to imply otherwise. I simply thought your point was worthy of a thread on its own.

Order does arise from chaos and that a build up of chemical energy can give rise to complexity. now I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your OP but i did not make claims that could not be backed up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/13/complexity-explained-9-how-did-complex-molecules-like-proteins-and-dna-emerge-spontaneously/

Ordered systems can be modified into equally ordered system by chaotic processes. This is what your link describes. HOwever, order does not arise from disorder by chaotic systems or by disorganized processes (chaos). Your second link is speculation. It does not provide any real observed examples of chemistry and energy generating complex systems like RNA or DNA. Ifs and ands, what-ifs and maybes.

By all means though please start a thread on life by deterministic processes if you like.

The question is, what is information? And how would you measure it?

 

In my opinion, information is any data at all, and measured in bits (or a similar system). However, some data can be compressed. Because the same data can be reconstituted from a potentially smaller amount of data, it makes sense to count the smallest amount possible as the amount of information, with the compressibility factor a measure of the redundancy of the information.

As ajb indicates, Shannon provides a good measure of information content when one is wishing to compare the quality and efficiency of systems that transcribe, translate and transmit encoded streams. In this case one has an objective standard in measuring information based on the ability of the system to reproduce the original stream.

I don't see how data and information can be treated as synonyms as you are suggesting though.

There are many kinds of information though as well. The compression algorithm is a form of information in that it is an instruction set that when executed it regenerates a stream of data. There are two objective measures in this case. One is in terms of shannon information and the ability of the instruction set to reproduce the original stream, the other is based on the degree of compressibility.

A subtype of information would be communication-information. Messages depend on the context of the situation, so what would be information to one person may be gibberish to another. Also, this gives another way to measure the information value of a message. For a message, the amount of information in the message itself is rather meaningless, and what people are interested in is what is new to them. Telling someone the sky is blue, for example, might not be considered information since they learn nothing new. Sending someone the entire contents of a website and sending them a link to it (if they have internet access) would be essentially equivalent. Politicians like to blather without saying anything definitive, so lots of words with very little information. I'm not sure how one might go about measuring this however, since to properly measure one would require the entire knowledge of the receiver as well as of the message.

This is another kind of information in that it informs. It eliminates alternatives. The challenge in measuring information content by Shannon's formulations is to know the size and probability distribution of the entire set of alternatives. In some cases this is known but in others it may not be known.

This thread is an outgrowth of a topic from the religion section that dealt with a particular kind of information which is digitally encoded functional information. These words for example are digitally encoded and they inform in that they eliminate alternatives but they may not always generate functional systems when processed. Computer code is functional and encoded.

Also a closely related question, how can information be generated?

How information can be generated would depend on the kind of information to be generated. If we were to accept your definition that information is data (which seems quite clearly false since data is data and requires analysis before it has any objective meaning) there are countless ways to generate data. However Information that informs by eliminating options and is coherent in that when processed generates functional systems and is encoded and is transcribed onto a neutral carrier is unique in that the only known source of this kind of information is an intelligent mind.

I don't see where an appeal to ignorance enters into this. Models that give an infinite universe do exist, and some are supported by evidence.

I might be wrong, but inventing a model that is molded to fit some limited number of observations (so one can claim it enjoys evidence) and also is molded to infer an infinite universe is not the same as finding observations that are directly consistent with and fit having infinite mass in this universe. I describe these kinds of models as metaphysics masquerading as science. It is a form of confirmation bias to my way of thinking.

Could someone explain how time and an infinite universe effects probability? Because it doesn't.

Good point. An infinite universe can only influence the outcome if the probabilistic resources from this hypothetical space can be brought to bear and act on the events in question. if these resources do not interact, they are isolated and irrelevant so you cannot multiply them since they are not dependent.

From water column, the pressure at 1 mile depth is only 2360 psi

The reservoir was another 13,000 no 16,500 feet below the sea floor.