Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / why do people think a apocolypse will happen in 2012??????

Author
Message
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 03:11
Link
I have to disagree with all those whom think it won't happen if the chance is over exactly zero. The basis being this: If it's impossible the chance IS zero. If it's not, the chance is ABOVE zero.

Now, how is a group of monkeys producing shakespear possible? Simple, through the use of a highly unfavorable scientific experiment one monkey was given a certain amount of DNA for their brains allowing them to produce the exact entire works of shakespear.

Monkey's can be pretty smart, btw.

Cheers,

-naota

I'm not a dictator to those that do stuff for me by will. Only those who don't.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Gil Galvanti
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 03:17
Link
Quote: "@Gil Gilvanti
I don't agree with you, how did you come to that conclusion?"

Well Rami basically explained already, but the first time you draw you have a 1/52 chance of getting the right card, then after that is removed you have a 1/51 chance of getting the next one right, so you end up just doing that all the way down to 1.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 03:26
Link
Here, dump this in DarkBASIC Pro and run it for a while. Let me know how long it takes, lol.



Note that (A) I'm a terrible programmer, no point in telling me what I already know, and (B) I wrote this in about three minutes or so, so it isn't pretty lol. But whatever, it gets the job done . If anyone actually runs this I'd love to know, lol.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
ico
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 03:38
Link
The end of the world at 2012 is a misinterpretation. The Mayan calender keeps track of the sun's orbit in the milky way. It's not the end of the world, its the end of an age. 2012 is just transition from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius. 12 ages in 1 complete cycle around the galaxy.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

But of course the end of the world sounds a lot more exciting, and a lot more marketable.

Arch Ball
2D RPG Battle Clone
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Frankie Pawnage5
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th May 2008
Location: squidwards nose
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 04:01
Link
Quote: "Quote: "Scientific experts from around the world are genuinely predicting that five years from now, all life on Earth could well finish. Some are saying it'll be humans that set it off. Others believe that a natural phenomenon will be the cause. And the religious folks are saying it'll be God himself who presses the stop button...


1. Mayan Calendar



The first mob to predict 2012 as the end of the world were the Mayans, a bloodthirsty race that were good at two things:

Building highly accurate astrological equipment out of stone and
Sacrificing Virgins.

Thousands of years ago they managed to calculate the length of the lunar moon as 329.53020 days, only 34 seconds out. The Mayan calendar predicts that the Earth will end on December 21, 2012. Given that they were pretty close to the mark with the lunar cycle, it's likely they've got the end of the world right as well.

2. Sun Storms



Solar experts from around the world monitoring the sun have made a startling discovery: our sun is in a bit of strife. The energy output of the sun is, like most things in nature, cyclic, and it's supposed to be in the middle of a period of relative stability. However, recent solar storms have been bombarding the Earth with so much radiation energy, it's been knocking out power grids and destroying satellites. This activity is predicted to get worse, and calculations suggest it'll reach its deadly peak sometime in 2012

3. The Atom Smasher

Scientists in Europe have been building the world's largest particle accelerator. Basically its a 27km tunnel designed to smash atoms together to find out what makes the Universe tick. However, the mega-gadget has caused serious concern, with some scientists suggesting that it's properly even a bad idea to turn it on in the first place. They're predicting all manner of deadly results, including mini black holes. So when this machine is fired up for its first serious experiment in 2012, the world could be crushed into a super-dense blob the size of a basketball.

4. The Bible says...

If having scientists warning us about the end of the world isn't bad enough,religious folks are getting in on the act aswell. Interpretations of the Christian Bible reveal that the date for Armageddon, the final battle between Good an Evil, has been set down for 2012. The I Ching, also known as the Chinese book of Changes, says the same thing, as do various sections of the Hindu teachings.

5. Super Volcano



Yellowstone National Park in the United States is famous for its thermal springs and Old Faithful geyser. The reason for this is simple - it's sitting on top of the world's biggest volcano, and geological experts are beginning to get nervous sweats. The Yellowstone volcano has a pattern of erupting every 650,000 years or so, and we're many years overdue for an explosion that will fill the atmosphere with ash, blocking the sun and plunging the Earth into a frozen winter that could last up to 15,000 years. The pressure under the Yellowstone is building steadily, and geologists have set 2012 as a likely date for the big bang.

6. The Physicists

This one's case of bog-simple maths mathematics. Physicists at Berekely Uni have been crunching the numbers. and they've determined that the Earth is well overdue for a major catastrophic event. Even worse, they're claiming their calculations prove, that we're all going to die, very soon - while also saying their prediction comes with a certainty of 99 percent- and 2012 just happens to be the best guess as to when it occurs.

7. Slip-Slop-Slap-BANG!

We all know the Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that sheilds us from most of the sun's radiation. What you might not know is that the magnetic poles we call north and south have a nasty habit of swapping places every 750,000 years or so - and right now we're about 30,000 years overdue. Scientists have noted that the poles are drifting apart roughly 20-30kms each year, much faster than ever before, which points to a pole-shift being right around the corner. While the pole shift is underway, the magnetic field is disrupted and will eventually disappear, sometimes for up to 100 years. The result is enough UV outdoors to crisp your skin in seconds, killing everything it touches.""

may i ask where you found that?

FrAnKiE
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 04:40
Link
Quote: "may i ask where you found that?"

I just googled something about the apocalypse and I found that lol.

InsaneFPS
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 04:50 Edited at: 14th Aug 2008 04:51
Link
@Frankie whateveritwas.
Quote: "may i ask where you found that?"

http://memorablespace.blogspot.com/2008/05/2012-prophecy.html

You know how teachers check whether you cheated by copying/pasting? They take the most complex lines they can find, or paragraphs that sound too professional, and put them in Google. If they find a result and notice that you just copied/pasted stuff, you're usually screwed.

Now, try to guess how I found that link?


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grandma
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2005
Location: Norway, Guiding the New World Order
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 11:21
Link
Quote: "It's not the end of the world, its the end of an age. 2012 is just transition from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius."


No.

That's 2062 at its earliest. I don't know where you've heard it was 2012, that's the first time I've seen anyone correlate 2012 with the transitition of a "great year".

This message was brought to you by Grandma industries.

Making yesterdays games, today!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Roxas
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2005
Location: http://forum.thegamecreators.com
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 12:48
Link
Quote: "you're usually screwed."


Well.. Define screwed If i do that im not screwed im just thinking things while teacher is yelling and in the end i usually say "Whatever, Whats the point to write about something thats already written."

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 16:18
Link
Quote: "Here, dump this in DarkBASIC Pro and run it for a while. Let me know how long it takes, lol."


It's ran all night so far, about 8 or so hours at least. No results yet. It almost makes me wonder if your code is broken since it's just a black box right now! ^_^ But I think your code looks ok. It's just not finding 'See Spot Run' very quickly.

You should make it count the calculations it took to find the combination as well as the time it took.

MISoft Studios - Silver-Dawn Gorilda is lost!

Back to top
Profile PM
Roxas
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2005
Location: http://forum.thegamecreators.com
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 16:47
Link
The code needs Randomize Timer()

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 17:16 Edited at: 14th Aug 2008 17:23
Link
Quote: "You know how teachers check whether you cheated by copying/pasting? They take the most complex lines they can find, or paragraphs that sound too professional, and put them in Google. If they find a result and notice that you just copied/pasted stuff, you're usually screwed.

Now, try to guess how I found that link?"

Monkey typists!

Also, this is my own monkey typer I cooked up in five minutes:


It demonstrates the concept with "hi". I tried it with "hello" and got impatient... so trying it even for such a small part of shakespeare as "to be or not to be" would take an age.

However, if you have an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amount of time then it will eventually happen.

EDIT: Added the set window layout command, allowing you to run it while doing other stuff.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Aug 2008 21:53
Link
Quote: "You should make it count the calculations it took to find the combination as well as the time it took."

At the last minute I changed it so it counts loop runs instead of time, but I forgot to fix that in the text part. Also, you can press spacebar to pause it and see what the count is up to. I modified it last night to slow down and show me what it's writing inside of each loop, so it's definitely working, but my god is it slow!

After having just talked to Dink in YIM, he's almost at a million runs, if anyone is interested to know

I turned off my computer last night after letting this thing run since I made it, it did 690,353 runs in-all. I'm wondering how long it would take to count out the full double float, and what happens when it maxes out?

Quote: "The code needs Randomize Timer()"

You're slipping Roxas . Look closely at the for/ next part, hehe.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 00:10 Edited at: 15th Aug 2008 00:10
Link
Out of interest, why are you using messy arrays and not chr$( 97 + rnd( 25 ) )?

(or whatever it is, from memory, haven't checked.)

ASUSTek Eee PC 701 4G Black - Celeron M @630mHz - 512Mb RAM - 32Mb Shared Intel GMA 900 - Windows XP Home SP1 - No antivirus/firewall.
And it still boots quicker than any other laptop I've seen.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 00:12
Link
Because I'm a crappy programmer? I keep telling you guys this and no one believes me

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 03:31
Link
I believe you.




A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 21:33 Edited at: 15th Aug 2008 21:44
Link
Quote: "The basis being this: If it's impossible the chance IS zero. If it's not, the chance is ABOVE zero."


I'm just saying mathematicians have a separate look on possibility. They don't treat it like anything above zero is possible. There's a limit where, mathematically it crosses over the line and becomes impossible. I will post a link.

EDIT

READ THIS

Quote stolen from here:

http://newine.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-myth-of-time-chance-mankind

Quote: " Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has one chance in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has one chance in 676 (26 times 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only one chance in 26^20 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376, roughly equivalent to the probability of buying 4 lottery tickets consecutively and winning the jackpot each time.

In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. Say the text of Hamlet contains 130,000 letters (it is actually more, even stripped of punctuation), then there is a probability of one in 3.4×10^183946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4×10^183946.

For comparison purposes, there are only about 10^79 atoms in the observable universe and only 4.3 x 10^17 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang. Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one chance in 10^183800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, “The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…”, and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed “gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers.” This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys."



Back to top
Profile PM Website
Leadwerks
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Jan 2008
Location:
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 21:42 Edited at: 15th Aug 2008 21:43
Link
Yeah, because a bunch of Mayans sitting around in the dirt a thousand years ago have a better understanding of the universe than you or I.

I thought the world was supposed to end in 2000?
Back to top
Profile PM
sinisterstuf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2007
Location: Namibia, Southern Africa
Posted: 15th Aug 2008 22:32
Link
@Gil Gilvanti's post up there
um... sorry... but that doesn't make sense. Why are you removing cards from the pack?

I said that the chance of you shuffling the cards so that they are aranged in a certain order, eg in ascending order by suit, is 1 in 2704. (could be more though if you have a valid explanation) Shuffling, as in mixing the cards together whether it be overhand shuffle, riffle shuffer or whatever your preferred method of shuffling... Where does the 'removing cards' come from?

CYMRU AM BYTH!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Gil Galvanti
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 01:09
Link
Quote: "@Gil Gilvanti's post up there
um... sorry... but that doesn't make sense. Why are you removing cards from the pack?

I said that the chance of you shuffling the cards so that they are aranged in a certain order, eg in ascending order by suit, is 1 in 2704. (could be more though if you have a valid explanation) Shuffling, as in mixing the cards together whether it be overhand shuffle, riffle shuffer or whatever your preferred method of shuffling... Where does the 'removing cards' come from?
"

You don't HAVE to remove the cards, but I was just thinking in terms of shuffling them and then laying them down to view them and it being in order. You haven't come up with any explanation of where 2704 came from that I've seen though, lol. Can I get someone else to back me up here?


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 03:21 Edited at: 16th Aug 2008 03:28
Link
@Jeku - I agree that it is incredibly unlikely, so much so that any monkey-typing experiment would almost certainly fail. But I maintain that, if you had either an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amout of time, it would happen.

Of course, the way you look at "infinite", "time" and "eventually" is important in determining whether or not you believe it would happen. If, say, we have one monkey and infinite time, then each time he types there is a incredibly small chance of anything intelligible coming out. So if you were, say, an immortal proof-reader with an immortal monkey with an everlasting typewriter, it would be so incredibly unlikely to happen that you may as well call it impossible.

But if you look at infinity as the amount of time it takes for anything to happen if the thing is possible (because it can happen as many times as is necessary until it eventually does happen) then, if you go past the "end" of infinity, it would certainly have happened.

Of course, since it is so unlikely, I agree that it would - for all intents and purposes - never occur, even if you had that monkey tapping away from the big bang all the way to whatever comes at the end of the universe.

Another incredibly unlikely event that I heard about on a very good programme on physics is the event of you walking through a wall. Apparently this is possible, given that all atoms can do anything at any given time (ie. quantum theory, where the probabilities of an atom doing anything determine what appear to be universal laws to us). If all the atoms in your body did exactly the right thing at exactly the right time while you were walking into the wall, you'd be able to walk through it. The catch is, you'd have to walk into it for the entire duration of the universe to even have a reasonable chance of it actually happening.

EDIT: It just occurred to me - how did we get to talking about monkey-typing in an Apocalypse thread?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 03:34
Link
Quote: "if you had either an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amout of time, it would happen"

But what if what they are typing isn't completely random?

Multisync - TCP Server/Client Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 03:38 Edited at: 16th Aug 2008 03:41
Link
Quote: "it would be so incredibly unlikely to happen that you may as well call it impossible."

I'd daresay an immortal proofreader would call it "quite a while". We might call it impossible, because we, humans, have a short lifespan. But theoretically, it isn't.

To compare to Jeku's examples, the chance the big bang created this exact universe is endlessly smaller than an tornado sweeping through a random graveyard assembling a working and fully operational Boeing 747. According to you, then, the universe coming to existance by means of the big bang is a mathematical "operational impossibility".

Now take into account your own genetic layout. The chance that you exist is linked to the survival of all your parents and the variables that made them meet, mate and survive long enough to produce offspring. I can tell you, that chance is infinitely smaller than that of a monkey typing Hamlet - as our DNA and genetic layout is more complex than Hamlet.

Taking that into account (mathematical operational impossibilities are practically still improbabilities (or like I'd like to say: "prove it")), take an infinite of anything (either monkeys or time), and you are sure it will really happen. With infinite monkeys, it will take the time of one monkey to punch in the equivalent of the characters of Hamlet. With infinite time, it will take a really, really long time - but it still will happen.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 03:57
Link
Quote: "To compare to Jeku's examples, the chance the big bang created this exact universe is endlessly smaller than an tornado sweeping through a random graveyard assembling a working and fully operational Boeing 747. According to you, then, the universe coming to existance by means of the big bang is a mathematical "operational impossibility". "


Which is why most don't believe in the big bang.

Quote: "With infinite time, it will take a really, really long time - but it still will happen."


Now, here's something you have to understand: The fact that something has a chance of happening is not a reason to believe that it did or will ever happen. Case and point: you can't base anything on chances like these.

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 04:04 Edited at: 16th Aug 2008 04:08
Link
Quote: "Now, here's something you have to understand: The fact that something has a chance of happening is not a reason to believe that it did or will ever happen. Case and point: you can't base anything on chances like these."

You are still thinking in finite terms. Try wrapping your mind around the word infinite. If you have but a single monkey that will type for infinity, it will happen with a 100% certainty. This is certain because a random chance, however small it is, will happen because there is no limit to the number of experiments you can take.

I believe in the big bang for scientific reasons. I am also someone who believes in God, but to me, that doesn't exclude each-other. Theory is that the Big Bang, originating from the singularity, has 'exploded' and 'imploded' infinitely and will continue to do so.

Possibility even is there are multiple of these singularities. So, the chance of this exact universe being created is 1. Also, the chance of this universe being created again under the exact same circumstances, if we can just assume this cycle to be infinite, is 1. So maybe, just maybe, we will be having this conversation again. And in that case we're sure we've had it before, too.

So, yes, if you take into account an infinite number of experiments, any chance above exactly 0 will by definition occur.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 04:07
Link
Quote: "You are still thinking in finite terms. Try wrapping your mind around the word infinite. If you have but a single monkey that will type for infinity, it will happen with a 100% certainty. This is certain because a random chance, however small it is, will happen because there is no limit to the number of experiments you can take.

Case and point: you're wrong."


You missed my point. Let's take, for instance, the infinitesimal chance that micro-evolution took us from non-living matter to intelligent human beings. Though there is a small chance that it would happen (ignoring barriers of genetics that honestly wouldn't allow such an event), and would happen eventually if given infinite chances, it only had one chance.

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 04:10
Link
Quote: "You missed my point. Let's take, for instance, the infinitesimal chance that micro-evolution took us from non-living matter to intelligent human beings. Though there is a small chance that it would happen (ignoring barriers of genetics that honestly wouldn't allow such an event), and would happen eventually if given infinite chances, it only had one chance."

Sorry, I edited my post. Please read the new one .

I disagree by the way that genetics would keep non-living matter from becoming 'alive'. It's just a really, really small chance, but with my reasoning in my edited post (the infinite big bang theory) - it makes sense.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 04:19
Link
Read through some of this. "Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life", specifically.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 05:27
Link
Okay, I read this. Written by a 'fellow' muslim, quite good stuff - interesting questions, too. Will be a fun read, but I will first reply to the thing you asked me to read:

Quote: "The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that a living cell-which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear-nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on the earth.[...]"

This guy, like you, underestimates the word chance. A tornado is formed by atmospheric conditions, and it still is more than any human could over create. Now, take something that happens purely by chance, and see if a human can replicate it. Maybe the chance is so small that we probably never will (in other words, highly improbable?). Heck, we don't even understand human development completely - this guy seriously overestimates human capabilities in relation to chance of nature.

Seeing most scientists and biologists still get thought and support evolution as science, plus the fact that evolution actually makes quite some sense - I don't really think it's a fake. You are free to disagree, naturally, but since I'd like to keep my never-been-slapped status, that's no discussion for here.

So, let's cut this short right here, deal?


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 05:36
Link
Quote: "This guy, like you, underestimates the word chance. A tornado is formed by atmospheric conditions, and it still is more than any human could over create. Now, take something that happens purely by chance, and see if a human can replicate it. Maybe the chance is so small that we probably never will (in other words, highly improbable?). Heck, we don't even understand human development completely - this guy seriously overestimates human capabilities in relation to chance of nature."


If you continue through the book, you'll see that he means it differently. Read starting at this page and for the next few pages. He goes through the complexities involved in living cells being formed.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html

But yes, we shall end it here.

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 08:05 Edited at: 16th Aug 2008 08:06
Link
Guys, I didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion on the origin of life. That link I posted was the first one I found from Google, but that exact paragraph is all over, and it makes sense to me anyhow. If theoretical physicists agree that it's true, then so do I.

The fact that the odds of this occurring is less than the number of atoms on this planet, and that's at the rate of monkeys typing billions of letters a second, then I will be happy with "it's impossible".

But after all, kinda hard to argue this kind of thing


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 08:08
Link
Quote: "Guys, I didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion on the origin of life."


We know. Both of us just found it relevant to that subject.

P.S. Yeah, I've read that paragraph many times.

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 08:14
Link
Rules are rules, eh, however fun this discussion could be.

Now, back to working on Seadome and TGC Heroes.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 08:22
Link
Quote: "um... sorry... but that doesn't make sense. Why are you removing cards from the pack?

I said that the chance of you shuffling the cards so that they are aranged in a certain order, eg in ascending order by suit, is 1 in 2704. (could be more though if you have a valid explanation) Shuffling, as in mixing the cards together whether it be overhand shuffle, riffle shuffer or whatever your preferred method of shuffling... Where does the 'removing cards' come from?"

Well, whatever the correct calculation would be, it is definitely not 1 in 2704. There are 52! possibilities to shuffle your deck into, and that equals somewhere around 8*10^67 - a lot. This means the chance is 1/(8*10^67) - highly improbable, or as Jeku would say: impossible.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 08:49
Link
Quote: "highly improbable, or as Jeku would say: impossible."


Jeku means improbable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borel%27s_Law

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 19:46
Link
@Mahoney - Thanks, I was looking for the name of this law That's the one!


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Mahoney
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 21:06
Link
No problem. I was trying to find it.

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Pentium Dual-Core 1.6 Ghz 1GB DDR2 RAM GeForce 8600GT Twin Turbo
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 16th Aug 2008 21:28
Link
For whatever it's worth, I've been running that program every day since I posted it, getting it up to a million (where it stops working, even though it's a double float, go figure). Hasn't found anything. Maybe if it were keeping track of which combinations didn't work it would eventually find something, or maybe if it were searching for something shorter than "see spot run."

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Darth Kiwi
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 01:19
Link
I tried mine with "to be or not to be". It ran... and ran... and ran... and...


*gasp*


Yeah, it didn't get it. Stupid monkey...

Back to top
Profile PM Email
sinisterstuf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2007
Location: Namibia, Southern Africa
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 18:59
Link
Concerning the argument between the_rami and mahoney, I agree with the_rami.

Concerning shuffling cards. You're right, I made a mistake. Where do you get your number from? My new chance is out of approximately 1.7*10^89
for 52 cards.

Concerning inanimate things becoming living. This was just something creepy I thought of in TOK (Theory of Knowledge) class. Isn't something as complex as the human brain (in principle) the same as a computer? A bunch of switches either on or off with electricity going through. To quote one of my classmates "science is not yet advanced enough to understand the human mind". Does this mean that in the future technology will allow us to fully understand what happens in our heads and why we do things and allow us to create a mechanical brain? If there is a difference between the brain and the mind then is the mind an idea percieved by the physical thing that is our brain? If technology allowed us to make a robotic person with a mind that will learn (just like a human) then wouldn't it be the same as us? Aren't we just like organic robots where the only difference between us and the robots that we make is what we're made (iron/carbon) and how complex we are? Because we've had a long time to get where we a and if you think about it, babies, when they're born, are actually pretty stupid... but they have this incredible ability to learn. Does this mean if we made a machine that could learn well, it would be able to understand human things? Because how do we humans, with something like a brain (just on and off switches), come up with things like emotion, love, passion, human nature, self consciousness... all those things... could a machine learn these too? Because aren't we just organic machines? Which makes me wonder if we were made by someone (that would be God, whichever way you believe)... if our robots were given the ability to learn, survive, reproduce, commuicate and do pretty much everything human and we gave them a planet to live which had perfect conditions (either because we found one perfect for them or designed them to be perfectly suited for it) they could live, just like we do... that would be a bit creepy, don't you think?

Gosh, I feel like there's something I forgot to mention... lol. Well, my questions and all the stuff I wrote up there may be flawed and stuff. They are there for you to think about, to think about life... and stuff... Naturally you can discuss them and try and answer any of them that you like. I would prefer it if people argued about the ideas though and not about how stupid my questions are which is why I tried to make them questions and not statements. So that people wouldn't tell me "you're wrong and you suck!". These are just things to think about. Don't expect me to come up with good arguments either. And try to think about it while you read it so that things aren't misunderstood and stuff happens like quote:
dad: "well that's the difference between humans and machines. we have a mind and can do more than just calculations" and i don't know what else he said but my point is *why* can humans do this? And why wouldn't robots be able to? Maybe they just need a 'chance'... lol
mum: "but if the robot says 'hello' then it says it because that's what you told it to" That wasn't what I was saying though. You're not supposed to tell the robot everything it knows. You're supposed to program in all the stuff we have programmed in when we're born: how to live (breath, ingest food, and subconscious tasks and stuff) and how to learn. Then if the robot says 'hello' then it's because it learnt that when you see someone you greet them like that.

*sigh*. However you take all this, I hope you find it interesting to read.

CYMRU AM BYTH!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 20:33
Link
Yes, a fully adaptive robot with identical intelligence to a human being would basically be a human conciousness, if you ask me. That is under one circumstance: emotion.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 20:46
Link
Quote: "Yes, a fully adaptive robot with identical intelligence to a human being would basically be a human conciousness, if you ask me. That is under one circumstance: emotion."


Emotion is probably not necessary to consciousness. That said, a robot may not even be conscious in the way humans are, even if it can make decisions and be automated. Perhaps we'll never have a robot that understands the concept "I think, therefore I am."

Or, it could be as Heinlein has it in a few of his books, one day computers will get so complex they'll just go conscious all on their own. The idea being once a computer gets past a certain number of transistors, the chances for it to gain consciousness are high.

I'm a Heinlein fan

Anyway, I believe we could make an artificial brain sometime in the future, but it won't be a computer, as far as we know them.


Hurray for teh logd!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
sinisterstuf
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Mar 2007
Location: Namibia, Southern Africa
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 21:03 Edited at: 17th Aug 2008 21:14
Link
Well also in ToK we discussed emotion and if we think about it; without the symptoms of the emotion there is no emotion. So maybe if a robot learnt when to produce the symptoms for the emotion it should be feeling at a point in time it will have learnt emotions? Does that make sense?

Think about happiness. When you'r happy you laugh, smile, feel energetic, I'm sure you can think about more. But if you are not laughing or smiling or anything else that goes with happiness then you are not feeling happy. Same goes for other stuff like sadness, anger, nervousness...
I don't know if you've heard people saying to smile because you will feel happier? Well it works, because when you produce the symptom of the emotion you will feel the emotion. Does it make sense now?

EDIT:
understanding the "i think therefore I am" thing... I think that for that to happen the robot just needs to be smart enough to start to question things until it questions itself. Obviously it'll need to know about stuff first because 3 year olds don't say stuff like that (I think). But I think it is still possible.
There's actually a joke that one of my teachers used to say at the back to school night. The IB course is supposed to get you to think critically about the world around you and stuff like that. He said "I think, therefore IB". Yeah

CYMRU AM BYTH!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 21:09
Link
Agh!!! Too... many... big... words.... head... about.... to... burst...

InsaneFPS
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grandma
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2005
Location: Norway, Guiding the New World Order
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 21:23
Link
Meh, I bottle all my emotions up. I do smile and laugh (it happens), but I never show any emotion when I'm mad, sad, nervous etc.

I might be a robot. Wooooohhh!

And emotion is just thoughts, if you replicated the thought-patterns of a human into a robot brain (somehow). It would in theory feel that emotion.

This message was brought to you by Grandma industries.

Making yesterdays games, today!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 22:21 Edited at: 17th Aug 2008 22:29
Link
Quote: "And emotion is just thoughts, if you replicated the thought-patterns of a human into a robot brain (somehow). It would in theory feel that emotion."

Not really. Emotions are not only part of the most primitive (oldest) part of the brain, they're also associated with various chemicals your body releases. Now it's been a few years since I took biology (though I did just take psychology), but unless I'm mistaken, without those chemicals a human would not feel most (possibly all) emotions. Even if the robot brain triggered the emotion, it would not feel it as we do, as it would not release the corresponding chemical related to that emotion.

Also, making a robot appear to have emotions has been done, a long time ago... It's very easy. Humans are actually extremely easy to fool in that category. Heck actors, comics, cg, all appear to have emotion when either faked or being static and possibly unmoving objects. As to actually having emotion, I don't know if that has been done. Emotions don't require self awareness, most everything with a brain feels emotion. I think I remember fear if the most basic and oldest emotion (and possibly hunger? I forget if that is an emotion), and every animal feels it. So it is entirely possibly that a robot has had emotions.

Creating a self aware robot is I think what you mean to say with the think therefore I am question. A robot does not necessarily need to understand the question to have it be true. Self Awareness does not notate intelligence (well, yes it does, but not necessarily such a level to understand philosophical concepts, I believe). Our awareness's are built upon so many levels, that it's like we're running in a super high level language. That, and the fact that electrochemical signals are much slower than electronic computations is why a computer can do basic functions such as math so much faster.

Once robots are self aware though, they're going to think A LOT faster than us. Even working in the super high level "language" of consciousness, their signals just travel way faster. The only real question is when they become more intelligent.

...I'll stop for now. I don't feel like writing an essay on robots or artificial self awareness, as cool as they are.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Alucard94
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jul 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 22:37
Link
Quote: "Meh, I bottle all my emotions up. I do smile and laugh (it happens), but I never show any emotion when I'm mad, sad, nervous etc.
"

About that, I'm a helpless optimist, I always seem to try and think on the better side of things (At least in real life, where there actually IS a better side of things... The interwebs are serious things.) because heck, you usually feel better when you're happy than you do when you're sad right? So my theory is, try to stay happy as long as you can and you'll feel better.


Although by that I obviously don't mean bottling up all emotion into one gigantic tumor and destroying yourself from the inside, although almost everyone have done that once or twice, I just mean trying to see the better side of things and just not thinking on the bad side of things, unless it is of major relevance of curse, I mean, I don't say that if someone threatened you to do something you would suddenly notice how great the weather is outside and try to have a argument about how extremely über awesome the sun shines on your skin with the guy who is holding you hostage, or if you were in an argument and someone would say something that you don't like and you would just ignore that and just go on like no one ever said that and try to argue anyways (Which sadly enough, too many people do these days).

And that usually makes me feel a little bit better inside, which I think is rather nice.


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 22:37
Link
Quote: "Creating a self aware robot is I think what you mean to say with the think therefore I am question. A robot does not necessarily need to understand the question to have it be true. Self Awareness does not notate intelligence. Our awareness's are built upon so many levels, that it's like we're running in a super high level language. That, and the fact that electrochemical signals are much slower than electronic computations is why a computer can do basic functions such as math so much faster."


I didn't mean to correlate intelligence with self-awareness. My point was, if a computer could spout out a line like that, it would almost certainly be self-aware and sentient.

But what if the computer were smarter than the best of us, it does not necessarily prove it's sentient. My thought is on how one could prove a computer is alive.

It's easy to prove humans are sentient, I'm sentient, that means it's not a far fetched idea to believe all humans are as well.

But a computer? We have no frame of reference. Many people don't even believe animals are sentient, though I believe it's a certainty.


Hurray for teh logd!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 22:58 Edited at: 17th Aug 2008 23:03
Link
@Jerico2day, I think the hardest thing is to really prove what sentientness is. What is the line where an intelligence stops acting without an understanding that it is doing so, and starts acting with an awareness that it is acting? I think it would be much easier to tell with a computer, as computers are man made and we not only have an understanding of how they work, but can look at how they work easily. That way, it might be possibly to look at a computers and "see" it's thought process.

Edit: Of course, I'm assuming it would be a sentience resembling our own. If like you say it's something else, I agree it would hard to find any point of reference.

Personally I'm certain various animals are sentient, aside from us. I think it'd be a stretch to say all animals are, but many display signs of being self aware.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 17th Aug 2008 23:34 Edited at: 17th Aug 2008 23:35
Link
I usually have shut down nearly all of my emotions just because I can, then once in a few months collapse for a day or two in which I don't talk to anyone and just think, and then continue with the start of the cycle.

Works great, you can act whatever you want whenever you want.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-20 14:37:23
Your offset time is: 2024-11-20 14:37:23