Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    I won’t dispute for a moment that the numbers show that the odds are staggeringly low – on any individual random set of pixels. In my first responses, I used terms like “unimaginably long times” because of that. Are you saying that the odds are precisely zero?

    As to saying a guessed image will never be displayed - I (in a thought experiment) enlist the help of gazillions of helpers. Each one selects a different image, until all 256640x480 images have been selected. Now what are you going to display on your screen?
    Could you deal in reality for a while? No matter how much you wish it could .. it never is.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Knight View Post
      Great point!

      The Marilyn Monroe picture is just an example. Randomness has a nearly infinite pool of possible images. Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls. Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls in color. Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling in purple pajamas. Red Skeleton juggling Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls.

      When my college professor used the example of Marilyn Monroe juggling fish he could have picked any example (real or imagined).

      How about....

      Any picture taken by every camera for all of time.

      Any frame of every movie ever shot by every camera through all of history.

      Any vision, of every eye, every seen by every human for all of time.


      The pool of comprehensible images is nearly infinite!


      Yet, randomness produces nothing but unordered snow, over and over again. Randomness does not produce detailed comprehensible ordered images.
      I have read the theory behind this point before, but can't remember where or all the details. I think the point about random processes is that each subsequent piece of data is constrained by the one that preceded it. So for a television signal the subsequent pixels follow a pattern. That pattern might have something to do with wavelengths or interference or the monitor .. anything really. The difference between an intelligent signal and a random one is that the intelligent signal has meaning attached and defies the random effects that infect everything else.

      An intelligent message follows the will of the designer, everything else falls into the line of least resistance. Any random generation of data is only ever going to produce a reflection of the random things that affect it. They will never reflect an intelligent source.

      I think Knight and I have approached this disagreement from completely different angles, but any way you look at it, it ain't going to happen and if you claim it could represent our reality then you have a lot more faith than any of us do ..
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        I have read the theory behind this point before, but can't remember where or all the details. I think the point about random processes is that each subsequent piece of data is constrained by the one that preceded it. So for a television signal the subsequent pixels follow a pattern. That pattern might have something to do with wavelengths or interference or the monitor .. anything really. The difference between an intelligent signal and a random one is that the intelligent signal has meaning attached and defies the random effects that infect everything else.

        An intelligent message follows the will of the designer, everything else falls into the line of least resistance. Any random generation of data is only ever going to produce a reflection of the random things that affect it. They will never reflect an intelligent source.

        I think Knight and I have approached this disagreement from completely different angles, but any way you look at it, it ain't going to happen and if you claim it could represent our reality then you have a lot more faith than any of us do.
        I hear ya 100%. When I said "great point" in response to ThePhy I was saying "great point" for us! (you and me and cm)
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Knight View Post
          I hear ya 100%. When I said "great point" in response to ThePhy I was saying "great point" for us! (you and me and cm)
          It's been a fascinating thread. It's been great to read chickenman and Knight's ideas and see how simple and obvious the idea of design is.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
            Can you explain briefly what the number 256640x480 refers to?
            Actually, it should be 256640x480-1, because the image of Marilyn Monroe juggling fish is impossible.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              think the point about random processes is that each subsequent piece of data is constrained by the one that preceded it.
              That would be a nonrandom process.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                Actually, it should be 256640x480-1, because the image of Marilyn Monroe jugglig fish is impossible.
                Only impossible through random means.

                <------ SUTG
                Critical thinking skills ---->
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                  Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls. Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls in color. Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling in purple pajamas. Red Skeleton juggling Marilyn Monroe juggling bowling balls.
                  OK, now we're down to 256640x480-5.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    Only impossible through random means.
                    Right. And only according to you and Stripe.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                      That would be a nonrandom process.
                      This is where I need to find the article I referenced. I believe it said that no matter what process you define there will always be factors that influence the data one receives. So what we rightly call random is also constrained by the physical setting. Perhaps I err in referring to those constraints as a "pattern", but I'm sure you appreciate the point.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                        Right. And only according to you and Stripe.
                        Are you changing your answer to the opening post?
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Are you changing your answer to the opening post?
                          No. What makes you think that?

                          Comment


                          • It had to be done.

                            OK, so lets prove once and for all that intelligence (no jokes about my intelligence please) can in fact produce the image in question.

                            I submit to you (and for your entertainment pleasure).....

                            Marilyn Monroe juggling fish.
                            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                              No. What makes you think that?
                              SUTG.

                              Is it possible for intelligence to generate random numbers?
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                                OK, so lets prove once and for all that intelligence (no jokes about my intelligence please) can in fact produce the image in question.

                                I submit to you (and for your entertainment pleasure).....

                                Marilyn Monroe juggling fish.
                                I'm glad you clarified this, because I thought that picture might have been a random error produced by a power spike in my computer.
                                "I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

                                "Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X