Posts by Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

Jeffro,

There seems to be some confusion between 'unpredictable' and 'random' in this thread. Something can be unpredictable because there is insufficient information regarding all of the determining factors to accurately predict it, however this does not necessitate randomness.

No confusion at all. Not all unpredictability is randomness, but randomness involves unpredictability. Unpredictability does not necessitate randomness, but randomness necessitates unpredictability. As simple as that. If you have a better definition of randomness than the ones suggested so far, feel free to share them!

Pole

20

Randomness is not necessary for evolution

by seattleniceguy in

continuing this theme of evolution and randomness that has been going on this week, i wanted to address a common pitful for the would-be evolutionary student.

often, a person will remark, "i see how the theory works, but i just can't believe it all came about by chance.

" if you're such a person, you'll be happy to know that evolution does not require chance at all.

Pole

tetra,
::can a random number generator on a computer, actually generate truly random numbers? the way that radioactive decay is random? i am really curious.
Believe me or not, but there was yet another thread with a few posts on that (the one on GUIDS started about Elsewhere) ;-). The answer is these are pseudo-random numbers, but good enough to simulate random processes unless you run the same program for billions of times. Then you may see some patterns emerging. But from the practical point of view these numbers are "random enough".
::anyways, evolution does not need pure randomness to work, as already demonstrated. so it's not a weakness/flaw in the program at all, if it's random number generator is not truly random. a simulation of randomness, and true "randomness" are different, i'm sure you'd agree. but the computers processor does not act randomly, but rather through logic gates, no?
I agree and this is why I said it is a certain ***theoretical*** limitation, when you explicitly use a random-number generator to simulate randomness and yet you only get approximations. As Elsewhere pointed out in the other thread the computer uses seed numbers to generate random numbers Those seed numbers can be obtained from the current indication of the hardware clock. If you think it's a deterministic method, then you are effectively saying evolution depends on the indications of the hardware clock of your PC. LOL. ;-)
::for the intent and purpose of the experiement, it is random enough to produce diversity, regardless of the system it runs in. and it's the same with embryonic mutation in nature. it's random enough to produce biological diversity.
Sure. "Random enough" - my point exactly.
Pole

25

How many mistakes does an organization have to make, to be a false prophet?

by run dont walk in

.

1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1,000,000 .

how would a jw answer ????

Pole

what tetra said

The JW would question the question.

Pole

20

Randomness is not necessary for evolution

by seattleniceguy in

continuing this theme of evolution and randomness that has been going on this week, i wanted to address a common pitful for the would-be evolutionary student.

often, a person will remark, "i see how the theory works, but i just can't believe it all came about by chance.

" if you're such a person, you'll be happy to know that evolution does not require chance at all.

Pole

::the program, like AVIDA for example, uses so-called "randomness". it never produces the same thing twice, or that we can tell anyways for all intents and purposes. but, the computer itself is not random entity, or processing environment.

And what do you think is the "so-called randomness"? One of basic the principles of the program is to simulate randomness. So I think saying "the computer itself is not random entity" is only tantamount to admitting one of the flaws of the program.

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

tetra
::sorry. all "intents and purposes" could also be: "for all we care about". for example: is the movement of pollen random, in so far as we care to find out about for the purpose of making predictions regarding it's movement?
I am not 100% sure about pollen motions, but in most cases the nature of such phenomena seems to be dualistic. We can spot some determinism and it gets manifested in the "shape" of the probability distribution (if the problem can be represented with a linear function). Different shapes for diffrent phenomena. Some are easier to predict than others. I think it's a pretty fair approach.
Claiming the existence of unobservable deterministic rules where the concept of randomness can be used and nicely modeled smacks of paranoia to me. (Now how's that for an ad hominem attack ;-).
Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

tetra,

I can answer that, but I have a problem understanding the exact intent and purpose of this expression (sorry it's my English):

"for all intents and purposes"

Explain please. I'll be back posting in about an hour. I'm supposed to pick my wife from work and I'm already 15 minutes late. The odds are she's going to kill me if I don't go now. No randomness will save me. ;-)

Pole

20

Randomness is not necessary for evolution

by seattleniceguy in

continuing this theme of evolution and randomness that has been going on this week, i wanted to address a common pitful for the would-be evolutionary student.

often, a person will remark, "i see how the theory works, but i just can't believe it all came about by chance.

" if you're such a person, you'll be happy to know that evolution does not require chance at all.

Pole

SNG,
::I wasn't saying for a fact that there is no randomness in the universe (at least not on this thread ). I was just pointing out that evolution works regardless of whether or not there is randomness.
OK. I agree. Although randomness helps explain things.
::For example, consider the myriad computer simulations of evolution. Evolution proceeds in spite of the fact that there is no randomness in the system.
I'm not sure what you mean? A simulation which doesn't allow for randomness would be totally bogus for me. that would mean every time you run your primordial soup application, you get exactly the same number of amino acid particles in exactly the same configuration. Or am I missing something?

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

SNG,

To the contrary I think the burden of proof is definitely with YOUR camp! ;-)
I agree there is little or no randomness where you can show me a clear cause. No problem with that. But it is you who claims that there are thousands of "invisible" rules, none of which you can put your finger on, which determine the movement of pollen.
You say "there must be rules" but that's just empty modality of the language you use. I say for all we know, it looks like there are no clearly deterministic causes EDITED TO ADD: as far as the unrestrained movement of pollen is concerned, and therefore I am happy with the notion of randomness.
Which is more fair?

Pole

11

English - the theocratic language?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

a brother in vienna told me he leaned english because that way you get closer to god's channel of truth.

are such sentiments common in non-english-speaking lands?

strange how a religiously minded evangelical may be encouraged to learn greek and hebrew, but a jehovah's witnesses opts to learn english.

Pole

slim,

First of all, that brother in Vienna sounds like frustrated dub looking for ways to sex-up his boring TRROF experience. I know because I moved to an English speaking congregation before I faded away looking for new ways to get excited about the whole WTS thing.
There is something to dubs learning English to get access to some publications. They can then show off in the congregation. And the "TROOF" sounds more exotic in the language different from your mother tounge.

::Whether English is the theocratic language, it certainly seems to be the apostate medium of exchange of choice.

There is a simple explanation for it: English speaking dubs are very close to the HQ, so it's easier for them to see through the lies and scandals. TO give you an example: the UN thing only hit Polish a year ago or so. Of course there was information about it on Polish "apostate" sites earlier than that, but the Branch Office only informed the congreagations (eerrr, I mean Bodies of Elves) recently.

Pole

20

Randomness is not necessary for evolution

by seattleniceguy in

continuing this theme of evolution and randomness that has been going on this week, i wanted to address a common pitful for the would-be evolutionary student.

often, a person will remark, "i see how the theory works, but i just can't believe it all came about by chance.

" if you're such a person, you'll be happy to know that evolution does not require chance at all.

Pole

SNG,

Be careful! You are making a controversioal philosophical assumption!!! As I pointed out on the other thread it's good to look at the history of the notion of randomness in natural sciences before drawing ultimate conlusions. Also look at Hume-Kant disagreement over cause-effect metaphysics in this respect.

I believe that we have to allow for some notion of randomness if we want to make coherent bio-physical models. Randomnes + deterministic rules = probability distributions.

I could argue there is no "infinity" in nature. But the concept is extremely useful and we don't know if it's actually not inherent to certain processes. Certain mathematical functions that reliy on infinity applied to physical phenomena make almost perfect sense.

But - as I said earlier I agree that the creationst argument that evolution is totally random and thus unlikely is completely flawed. Sometimes "random" functions applied to natural processes indicate 99.99999% probability that something happens. Of course the creationist still has a 0.0000001% chance of being right.

Pole