Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 19:51:15 12/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2001 at 16:57:01, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On December 23, 2001 at 03:00:23, Russell Reagan wrote:
>
>>Probability makes sense to me. I understand it. I guess what I should have said
>>was, I don't understand how it is correct. Like the evolution of the world. The
>>same scientists who will say that there is intelligent life out there by
>>probability, will tell you that we are products of evolution, which I don't
>>believe. I liked a man's example saying, "What are the odds of a nice shiny
>>watch with the name Rolex imprinted on it just randomly coming together in the
>>middle of the universe over a few billion years?" It's not going to happen. An
>>exact working replica of a Rolex watch isn't just going to randomly come
>>together over billions of years...unless (!) there is an intelligent creator
>>(humans in this case). How much more complex is a computer than a Rolex watch?
>>Is a computer going to randomly be created flying around in the universe with
>>the name Dell printed on the side with a nice little Intel Inside sticker on the
>>box? How much more complex is a human being than a computer? Is a human being
>>going to just randomly be created from gases floating around in the universe?
>>That's what the "experts" will tell you.
>>
>>My point regarding probability theory here is that it's extremely unlikely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are disproving probability theory with probability :-)
that
>>something as complex as a human being, computers, wrist watches, etc. are going
>>to be randomly created just because a long time period is supposedly spanned.
>>It's highly unlikely (from a probability standpoint) that evolution is correct,
>>yet probability is used for the evidence towards beliefs in other theories, such
>>as the intelligent life on other planets theory. My point: scientists pick and
>>choose when and what they want to use. If it's to their advantage, they use it,
>>if it's not, they just "ignore" it. Makes you wonder about the "experts".
>>
>>Russell
>
>You have missed the point somewhere along the line.
>Evolution is believed to be a law of nature, a cascade effect like that of an
>avalanche - once it starts it can't be stopped.
>But we need the right conditions for the avalanche set off, and this is where
>the probability issues enter. We know life can exist on Earth under extremely
>hostile conditions, there is no reason to believe this should be different on
>other planets.
>It is much like the development of a chess program, you try some new ideas, if
>they don't work you throw them away and stick with what you had.
>Nature has done plenty of experiments, some work some don't, you know the frase
>"survival of the fittest", that is evolution in a nutshell and Nature is very
To be more strict it would be "more suitable reproduction of the fittest", which
implies, some degree of survival until you reach a fertile age. Beyond that,
nature do not care about you, unless you are needed to protect your offspring.
If you are not needed for that you can just die like a butterfly.
>serious about it.
>
>Scientist don't just pick and choose what they believe in :)
>Evolution is as close to proven as it can possibly be.
In fact, nowadays, if a hypothesis does not fit what the evolution will say
the hypothesis is discarded, and rightly so. Asking yourself "What the evolution
will like to do here?" has helped biochemists tremendously to channel the
efforts in the right direction.
Moreover, at small scale you can witness artificial (forced) evolution on
molecules in the lab. It is being used to produce more efficient ones for
specific purposes.
Coming back to computer chess, genetic algorithms work too, they need just
a longer time :-)
Regards,
Miguel
>
>-S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.