ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

[FedUpWithFaith]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood you then. It was apparent to me that you were saying that probability over time would increase. But speaking in terms of life forming from a reaction of inorganic materials, then there's no "over time". There's only a whole bunch of "one shots" to get the job done. So long-term probability is 100% irrelevant. There are only a whole bunch of independent rolls of the dice. If I understood you correctly, then your atheistic faith would be your bias. If I misunderstood you, then please forgive my oversight.

There you go mixing apples and oranges again. You and Knight obviously didn't understand my discussion of degrees of freedom either. Per event probability for stochastic processes is stable. The chances of getting heads on the millionth flip doesn't matter what happened before or after. We agree on that. But conjoint probabilities depend the number of events - generally a function of time if the events keep occurring through time.

Now let's assume you flip a coin every second from now on, for billions of years if you like. What is the probability that you will flip 10, 100, or 100 billion heads in a row in the future? If you really understand statistics as you say you do you should be able to easily answer the following basic questions:

1. How long with it take before there is a 95% chance you will row 10 heads in a row? How long for a 99% chance. How long for a 99.99999999% chance?

2. Now do the same thing for 100 and 100 billion heads in a row.

What you should know simply by common sense is that the more random events have to occur simultaneously "just right", e.g., the longer you have to wait. Likewise, the higher a level of certainty you require also requires you wait longer.

Are you still following me? OK, let's hope so. Now do the same thing for Knight's space message. Use whatever signal encoding method you like for each letter (like ascii) and make whatever assumptions you like about what density of signals/sec SETI is capable of reading. Now compute the conjoint probabilities of all those letter-signals being observed to come together into that one unified message randomly. For example what is the expectation time you need to expect to receive such a message with 99% certainty? I don't have to sit down and do such calculations to know that the time it would take is unimaginably longer than the universe is old - 14 billion years.

So the likelyhood of Knight's message occuring by chance does increase as you integrate conjoint probability over time - every day as long as there are new signals being monitored. But without any mechanism to select particular random signals, letters, or words in a non-random manner, like evolution does (acting upon each separate or conjoint random mutation through natural selection) the chances of conjoint occurance increases extremely slowly over time relative to a deterministic process like evolution. Such discrepancies arise and grow exponentially the more complexity you insist be embodied into one event. If scientists said that in order for evolution to work a large number of different mutations all had to occur simulateously without any natural selection process in-between I would agree that the theory was nuts. But that ain't the theory.

If you and Knight thought this was all some ingenious trap to catch those of us who understand and accept evolution then you've just been hoisted by your own petard. I didn't need any "atheistic faith" (LOL) to do it either - just reason and logic and a little bit of intelligence.

True, but probabilistic thinking in no way affects reality.

LOL - really? If you agree we all believe via probabilistic reasoning then that enables our beleifs to influence our actions and perceptions, that, in turn, affect outcomes and history.

 

[ThePhy]

Are you saying you would like to change your answer? By all means, don't let me stop you.

Is there a span of time that is necessary to produce the signal from space?

You have already acknowledged the signal could have been generated on day one so I really have no idea why you would want to further argue this dead point.

Change my answer? Not at all. But you would be well-advised to change yours.

I think you feel you are on firm logical ground with your stance. I am comfortable in my position. I want to see if we can see where we part company.

I am proposing a simplification of your MM scenario as a starting point. Your requirement is that every pixel on the TV have the hue and intensity of the desired picture. A too-dark pixel on her nose would look like a zit – not permitted. Not even one fly speck on the backdrop behind her, or chipped piece of fingernail polish permitted. Your are a harder taskmaster than Leona Helmsly.

I am suggesting that the simplified test be that we start with the same picture, but only require that the pixel in the top left corner be perfect. Kind of a “one pixel” picture. That pixel can be varied over a range of hues and intensities, but only the exact hue and intensity of that pixel in the original pic will be accepted.

Is this logically different from your MM scenario in any way other than the number of pixels involved?

 

[Edmond_Dantes]

Given that communication is based on protocols, there are a few layers of compliance the signal must adhere to, unguided/random or designed/engineered. Here's a few I would consider significant.

The data portion would have been modulated within a carrier.

The carrier would fall within the bands being monitored of a strength sufficient to be detected, given the random 'noise' generated by natural events that's an easy one (Low Noise Amplifiers detect signals at around -140db)

The data portion is where things get funky. Once the demodulator strips the data signal at any given freq, though we might generally use 70 or 700 mhz we can assume SETIs using a range of intermediate freqs(IF).

Now within this IF is our actual data. I can think of two possibilities.
One, it's a straight up sinusoidal audio signal conforming to our audio range, human language syntax and semantics.
Two, its encoded in a binary based human encoding scheme (ASCII, UNICODE) which can be decoded by a preset algorithm on the receiving end.

Could it be a statistical probability of random events, sure I'll play your silly game. However I, as a reasonable man, would not only assume intelligence behind it but that said intelligence has intimate and privileged knowledge pertaining to us.

 

[SingedWing]

Given that communication is based on protocols, there are a few layers of compliance the signal must adhere to, unguided/random or designed/engineered. Here's a few I would consider significant.

The data portion would have been modulated within a carrier.

The carrier would fall within the bands being monitored of a strength sufficient to be detected, given the random 'noise' generated by natural events that's an easy one (Low Noise Amplifiers detect signals at around -140db)

The data portion is where things get funky. Once the demodulator strips the data signal at any given freq, though we might generally use 70 or 700 mhz we can assume SETIs using a range of intermediate freqs(IF).

Now within this IF is our actual data. I can think of two possibilities.
One, it's a straight up sinusoidal audio signal conforming to our audio range, human language syntax and semantics.
Two, its encoded in a binary based human encoding scheme (ASCII, UNICODE) which can be decoded by a preset algorithm on the receiving end.

Could it be a statistical probability of random events, sure I'll play your silly game. However I, as a reasonable man, would not only assume intelligence behind it but that said intelligence has intimate and privileged knowledge pertaining to us.

Yes. If it were in ascii english and all the other factors you mentioned were in range and they didn't have any prior knowledge of us then it would be far more probable that it was the monkey-typewriter-shakespeare pure chance sort of thing.

One other possibility that I think unlikely is that God's plan required that the two of us get together. Could be.

None of this in any way has anything to offer in disproving abiogenesis or evolution.

In my opinion those two things are God's plan.

I'll edit this to say that if the above was true that I would buy God's plan as an explanation rather than random chance.

 

[chair]

Knight,

In many scientific fields they use 'confidence levels'. That is, in areas where statistical analysis of data is needed, often one cannot say ' I am 100% sure that this is correct'. One can say 'based on the data, I am 95% sure that this is correct'.

Now, as has been pointed out here already, evolution isn't a pure probability issue, since the results are sorted after each 'toss of the dice'.

 

[chickenman]

There you go mixing apples and oranges again. You and Knight obviously didn't understand my discussion of degrees of freedom either. Per event probability for stochastic processes is stable. The chances of getting heads on the millionth flip doesn't matter what happened before or after. We agree on that. But conjoint probabilities depend the number of events - generally a function of time if the events keep occurring through time.

Now let's assume you flip a coin every second from now on, for billions of years if you like. What is the probability that you will flip 10, 100, or 100 billion heads in a row in the future? If you really understand statistics as you say you do you should be able to easily answer the following basic questions:

1. How long with it take before there is a 95% chance you will row 10 heads in a row? How long for a 99% chance. How long for a 99.99999999% chance?

2. Now do the same thing for 100 and 100 billion heads in a row.

What you should know simply by common sense is that the more random events have to occur simultaneously "just right", e.g., the longer you have to wait. Likewise, the higher a level of certainty you require also requires you wait longer.

Are you still following me? OK, let's hope so. Now do the same thing for Knight's space message. Use whatever signal encoding method you like for each letter (like ascii) and make whatever assumptions you like about what density of signals/sec SETI is capable of reading. Now compute the conjoint probabilities of all those letter-signals being observed to come together into that one unified message randomly. For example what is the expectation time you need to expect to receive such a message with 99% certainty? I don't have to sit down and do such calculations to know that the time it would take is unimaginably longer than the universe is old - 14 billion years.

So the likelyhood of Knight's message occuring by chance does increase as you integrate conjoint probability over time - every day as long as there are new signals being monitored. But without any mechanism to select particular random signals, letters, or words in a non-random manner, like evolution does (acting upon each separate or conjoint random mutation through natural selection) the chances of conjoint occurance increases extremely slowly over time relative to a deterministic process like evolution. Such discrepancies arise and grow exponentially the more complexity you insist be embodied into one event. If scientists said that in order for evolution to work a large number of different mutations all had to occur simulateously without any natural selection process in-between I would agree that the theory was nuts. But that ain't the theory.

If you and Knight thought this was all some ingenious trap to catch those of us who understand and accept evolution then you've just been hoisted by your own petard. I didn't need any "atheistic faith" (LOL) to do it either - just reason and logic and a little bit of intelligence.

I PROMISE you I know exactly what you're trying to say. I just don't agree since you have different (perhaps countless) variables with each toss. Nevertheless, we are obviously not going to get on the same page. Perhaps tomorrow will bring fresh insights.

By the way, I've never hoisted a petard. But I was forced to hoist a leotard in fifth grade when I played Clarence from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That was a long time ago, but it's still painful memory. Thanks for haunting me with a similar sounding phrase. :shocked: I may not sleep for a week.

Have a good night.

cm :chicken:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Of course it's a valid argument. Imagine a man who is rolling a dice with 1000 sides. You know this man rolls the dice once a month. Now, two months pass by and your friend asks, "Knight, do you think he has rolled a 500 yet?" Knowing that the man only rolls the dice once a month, you know that he has only rolled the dice two times. Knowing that the dice has 1000 sides, you reasonably tell your friend "It's very unlikely that he has rolled a 500 because he has only rolled the dice two times". Now imagine 100 years have passed. Your friend asks the question again. Knowing that the man has now rolled the dice 1200 times, you reasonably respond, "It's more probable that at some time in the past 1200 rolls the man has rolled a 500 than it was when the man had rolled only twice." This is the essence of what's being argued. You can simulate this very easily with a simple computer program.

Johnny, you just don't get it do you?

If it's theoretically possible to get the desired roll of the dice on the first try then its theoretically possibly we could get the signal from space in our life times.

Unless you can up with a logical reason that would preclude such an event (I am all ears!). If not, you are simply obfuscating.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now, as has been pointed out here already, evolution isn't a pure probability issue, since the results are sorted after each 'toss of the dice'.

This "sorting" is it done intelligently or randomly?

 

[Ktoyou]

And why has every single person on this thread without exception sided with intelligence yet at the same time acknowledged that the signal didn't necessarily have to have an intelligent source? Said in short... everyone agrees that the signal could be a product of random chance but they all reject that in favor of intelligent origin.

count me out of the 'every single person'. I will say has an intelligent life source and I welcome it. I am more than ready for a change; perhaps some higher alien people would be able to make me healthy. I would take the risk and fly away.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

I PROMISE you I know exactly what you're trying to say. I just don't agree since you have different (perhaps countless) variables with each toss. Nevertheless, we are obviously not going to get on the same page. Perhaps tomorrow will bring fresh insights.

Well, if you understand statistics and really understand my argument (let's exclude evolution for a minute) then, frankly, you have to agree or you're simply wrong. This is proven logic and math - it's not an atheist thing. Any Christian statistician worth his or her salt would agree with me. I'm highly trained in this stuff and I've successfully used these and far more difficult concepts in my scientific and commercial R&D to significant success.

Now perhaps I haven't been clear enough so if you can give concrete examples like I did to illustrate what you disagree with maybe I can help you see the light. We'll see. And just so you know, there's no trap waiting for you when you realize you are wrong. If you do see the light it won't mean God doesn't exist. It does have significant implications for at least part of what appears to be your rationale against evolution. But truth is truth whether we like it or not.

By the way, I've never hoisted a petard. But I was forced to hoist a leotard in fifth grade when I played Clarence from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That was a long time ago, but it's still painful memory. Thanks for haunting me with a similar sounding phrase. :shocked: I may not sleep for a week.

Have a good night.

cm :chicken:

I'm sure you were adorable with the leotard. If you care to see the origin and meaning of the expression "Hoisted by one's own petard" you can find it here:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist by your own petard.html

Good night chickenman. Hope you get a good night's rest and have a clear and eager mind tomorrow.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, you just don't get it do you?

If it's theoretically possible to get the desired roll of the dice on the first try then its theoretically possibly we could get the signal from space in our life times.

Unless you can up with a logical reason that would preclude such an event (I am all ears!). If not, you are simply obfuscating.

With all due respect, I do 'get it'.

I don't deny that it's just as (un)likely that the signal is randomly generated tomorrow as it was that the signal is randomly generated 5000 years ago. It is theoretically possible that it could be randomly generated in our life time and it is no more probable than it was 1000 years ago or will be 1000 years from now.

What I'm arguing is that it is a valid statement to say that the likelihood of such a random signal appearing at some point in time increases with the age of the universe. This is not the same thing as saying that it is more likely to be generated tomorrow than it was 3 million years ago. Surely you agree that the more lottery cards you buy during any single lottery, the more likely you are to win that lottery. Right? In the same way, the more time that elapses in the universe, the more random signal "lottery" is played. That's all that's being argued.

 

[SingedWing]

May as well throw myself to the wolves here. I hope I have the time and energy to follow it up.

I think that creationists don't like to argue with devout Christians who believe in evolution. You need the atheists so you can throw abiogenesis at them in one post and then evolution in another and some strange theories about carbon dating in another. And the probability argument, is always bunk.

FedUp mentioned apples and oranges.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Johnny, you just don't get it do you?

If it's theoretically possible to get the desired roll of the dice on the first try then its theoretically possibly we could get the signal from space in our life times.

Unless you can up with a logical reason that would preclude such an event (I am all ears!). If not, you are simply obfuscating.

You're the obfuscating party and you're talking out your hat and know little to nothing about event (a priori and a posteriori), conjoint, and contingent probability.

Johnny isn't saying it isn't theoretically impossible to get the signal now, yesterday, or tomorrow. We know it is. It's just astronomically unlikely to occur anytime from the creation to trillions of years from now. If we got the message tomorrow you'd be a fool to default to believe it being a random occurrence. I made the case very clearly in my earlier post and you can't refute it - only twist words.

There is nothing magic about this. The same statistics apply to our world everyday in accepting or rejecting disease treatments and most scientific hypotheses on the basis of statistical significance. It makes more sense to assume that antibiotics have no curative power and that all those millions seemingly cured by it are coincidents than your assertion that the signal is random which would be orders of magnitude more coincidental. Promise me you'll put your conviction to test if you ever get meningitis.

 

[Stripe]

I believe I said few of us not all of us. Nor did I say I was certain of anything. See how easy it easy to let probability games fool you?

BTW I don't know much but I've heard the numbers on this. If people were banned in order of stupidity from a group of say 100,000 then statistically I would likely be the last man standing. That utter lack of humility is hopefully helpful in your search for a shred of it.

:rotfl: Do you think people are going to agree with you when you insist you are the smartest one here? You really are stupid.

:chuckle:

 

[Johnny]

Now, as has been pointed out here already, evolution isn't a pure probability issue, since the results are sorted after each 'toss of the dice'.

This "sorting" is it done intelligently or randomly?

Neither. Sorting, filtering, and selection are non-random and unintelligent processes which occur in nature and yield non-random results.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

With all due respect, I do 'get it'.

I don't deny that it's just as (un)likely that the signal is randomly generated tomorrow as it was that the signal is randomly generated 5000 years ago. It is theoretically possible that it could be randomly generated in our life time and it is no more probable than it was 1000 years ago or will be 1000 years from now.

What I'm arguing is that it is a valid statement to say that the likelihood of such a random signal appearing at some point in time increases with the age of the universe. This is not the same thing as saying that it is more likely to be generated tomorrow than it was 3 million years ago. Surely you agree that the more lottery cards you buy during any single lottery, the more likely you are to win that lottery. Right? In the same way, the more time that elapses in the universe, the more random signal "lottery" is played. That's all that's being argued.

But none of that would help you make your determination while visiting your friend at SETI.

In other words...
When the signal was received the length of time SETI had been tracking signals would play no part in the determination if the signal was generated randomly or by intelligent means.

 

[SingedWing]

:rotfl: Do you think people are going to agree with you when you insist you are the smartest one here? You really are stupid.

:chuckle:

Well it was just a stupid human test and happened long ago. I'm senile now so don't let it get to you. Are you listed as a Christian?

 

[Door]

With all due respect, I do 'get it'.

I don't deny that it's just as (un)likely that the signal is randomly generated tomorrow as it was that the signal is randomly generated 5000 years ago. It is theoretically possible that it could be randomly generated in our life time and it is no more probable than it was 1000 years ago or will be 1000 years from now.

What I'm arguing is that it is a valid statement to say that the likelihood of such a random signal appearing at some point in time increases with the age of the universe. This is not the same thing as saying that it is more likely to be generated tomorrow than it was 3 million years ago. Surely you agree that the more lottery cards you buy during any single lottery, the more likely you are to win that lottery. Right? In the same way, the more time that elapses in the universe, the more random signal "lottery" is played. That's all that's being argued.

Actually, your chances of winning the lottery are 100% if you buy the right numbers and 0% if you buy the wrong numbers. Buying 500 billion sets of numbers does not increase your chances if none of them have the winning numbers.

 

[Stripe]

Well it was just a stupid human test and happened long ago. I'm senile now so don't let it get to you. Are you listed as a Christian?

No. I'm a meat popsicle.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am proposing a simplification of your MM scenario as a starting point. Your requirement is that every pixel on the TV have the hue and intensity of the desired picture. A too-dark pixel on her nose would look like a zit – not permitted. Not even one fly speck on the backdrop behind her, or chipped piece of fingernail polish permitted. Your are a harder taskmaster than Leona Helmsly.

I am suggesting that the simplified test be that we start with the same picture, but only require that the pixel in the top left corner be perfect. Kind of a “one pixel” picture. That pixel can be varied over a range of hues and intensities, but only the exact hue and intensity of that pixel in the original pic will be accepted.

Is this logically different from your MM scenario in any way other than the number of pixels involved?

Well, it isn't "my" scenario it was my professor's scenario which all of you seemed to think was completely reasonable (on the other thread).

Furthermore, I did come up with a more "easy" scenario.... I came up with the very simple message from space that would be dramatically less improbable than generating a picture of Marilyn Monroe juggling fish via random pixels.

And so far its a clean sweep, every single one of you has admitted you would be comfortable admitting that the signal was generated intelligently and not randomly.

Apparently for you folks the more complex something is the more likely it was generated randomly, and the less complex a pattern is the more likely it was generated by intelligent life. Go figure! :doh: