How exactly does space/time fabric work?

Seedling

Well-Known Member
If a species can figure out how to separate consciousness from a physical form, then they must have started with a physical form. If you believe that intelligent energy beings can come into existence without evolution, then that's equivalent to gods and ghosts and I will dismiss that until you or anyone else can provide evidence that such a thing can possibly exist.
I believe that given a dense massive object, and enough time, that it can produce a white tiger. I believe that given enough time, it can produce a watch, a tv, a cell phone, a computer, and a car that runs on Nitro methane and can travel a 1/4 mile in 4 seconds from a dead stand still.

So, now, answer the question, can computers evolve from a hunk of mass floating around in space if simply left alone for enough time?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Really? How so? The idea of simple organisms becoming more complex over time cannot happen without the basic tenets laid out by Darwin. You need a lot of time and something that can carry information and a method to replicate the information and allow for changes in that information.
Yes but the selection process is still Darwinian in nature, just artificial,, not natural.

Sure I can. I propose a DNA analog, some sort of replicator. Of course it won't be DNA specifically. And yes, any complex intelligence will require evolution. Do you have any other method of getting such complexity? Didn't think so.
It might seem that way but you are wrong.
I don't need the sophistry.

The point is just because you think there is only an evolutionary process
even possible for the advancement of species; that is just a guess for you.

To suggest and dismiss I can't imagine an alternative as your brush off; that just mean you need to read up on exo-biology.

I see that you are less a good thinker than it seems. Your entire style is Ego and stupid rude. So, like Buck, you also hide behind fake, tough guy approach.

So childish to dismiss any discussion
with...you are wrong.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I believe that given a dense massive object, that given enough time it can produce a white tiger. I believe that given enough time, it can produce a watch, a tv, a cell phone, computer, and a car that runs on Nitro methane and can travel a 1/4 mile in 4 seconds from a dead stand still.
well done you've just described exactly what happened on earth
So, now, answer the question, can computers evolve from a hunk of mass floating around in space if simply left alone for enough time?
a computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on? or a biological computer like us?

a computer with wires evolving of its own accord wouldnt happen.

i thing your suggesting one would appear ready formed supposed thats entirely possible but pretty much entirely improbable its about bit like the monkeys writing shakespeare on a type writer

http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys
Let's imagine a very simple typewriter that has only the 26 upper-case letters, a space bar and five punctuation characters (a total of 32 buttons). It doesn't even have a carriage return -- it does an automatic return when the required number of letters have been typed, and it has an infinite roll of paper being fed through it. We have a monkey that knows how to press the keys and will do so in a totally random manner indefinitely. All in all, we have a little bit of machinery, but no real intelligence in the system. We want our monkey to type the following snippet: "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION."
The probability of this happening is quite simple to calculate, and this will in turn give us some idea of how many monkeys and typewriters we need for a reasonable chance of success. Place your bets now -- our monkeys are fast typists and can type the required number of characters in a single second (there are 41 keystrokes)! On average, how long will it be before one of our monkeys produces a line matching the above sentence?
Well, there are 32 keys, so starting at any moment, the chances of our monkey getting the first keypress right are one in 32. Not good, but we have fast monkeys and lots of time. However, once it has got the first keystroke right, we also need the second keystroke to be right, otherwise we are back to square one. The chances of it getting the first and second keystrokes right are only one in (32*32 = 1024). Only one chance in 1024, but still lots of time to get it right. To get the first three characters right will be a one in (32*32*32 = 32768) chance. Each time it presses a key, there is a one in 32 chance that it will be correct. To get our little snippet of Hamlet, it will need a total of 41 consecutive "correct" keystrokes. This means that the chances are one in 32 to the power of 41. Let's look at a table of values.

Keys Chances (one in...) ------------------------------------ 1 32 2 32*32 = 1024 3 32*32*32 = 32768 4 32*32*32*32 = 1048576 5 32^5 = 33554432 6 32^6 = 1073741824 7 32^7 = 34359738368 8 32^8 = 1099511627776 9 32^9 = 3.518437208883e+013 10 32^10 = 1.125899906843e+015 ... 20 32^20 = 1.267650600228e+030 ... 30 32^30 = 1.427247692706e+045 ... 41 32^41 = 5.142201741629e+061 ... 204 32^204 = 1.123558209289e+307 The last figure is included only because it is the largest value that the MS Windows calculator can handle -- it's doing better than my hand-held Casio (old faithful!) which only goes up to 1e+99. Okay, so these figures are pretty vast, but we have a lot of monkeys and they can type fast. So how long will it take, on average, for one of my monkeys to type a line matching that sentence? Hard question. Let's get an idea of how long we are talking here. How many lines can my monkey type in a year, given that it types at a rate of one line per second?

1 line per second * 60 seconds per minute = 60 lines per minute * 60 minutes per hour = 3600 lines per hour * 24 hours per day = 86400 lines per day * 365.24 days per year = 31556736 lines per year Okay, now for the moment of truth. We know how many possible different lines can be produced, hence how likely it is for us to get the right one at random (because only one is right). We can calculate the chances of getting the quote in a year most easily by calculating the chances of missing on every attempt: the chances of getting the quote will be 100% minus the chances of missing on every attempt. I need a really amazingly precise calculator to do this because the chances of missing are so close to 100% that most calculators will round it off to 100%. The calculation is as follows.

probability of missing on one attempt = 1 - 1/(32^41) ...of missing for a minute straight = (1 - 1/(32^41)) ^ 60 ...of missing for an hour straight = ((1 - 1/(32^41)) ^ 60) ^ 60 ...of missing for a day straight = (((1 - 1/(32^41)) ^ 60) ^ 60) ^ 24 ...for a year straight = ((((1 - 1/(32^41)) ^ 60) ^ 60) ^ 24) ^ 365 If you have access to Unix, you can calculate this with the dc command, but be warned that it may take quite a while to calculate and annoy other users because the computer is so slow. Use of the nice command is suggested. The syntax, should you care to try, is as follows. Type the dc command, then type the following lines.

99k 1 1 32 41 ^ / - 60 ^ 60 ^ 24 ^ 365 ^ p The figure that is eventually printed will be the probability (expressed as a value between zero and one) of our monkey not typing our little phrase from Hamlet in the space of one year's worth of continuous attempts. The answer that it prints looks like this:
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999386721844366784484760952487499968756116464000
Notice all the nines? Even to fifty or more significant figures, this reads 100%. Okay, so realistically, there is no way that our monkey can do its job in a year. Maybe we should start talking centuries? Millenia? As I understand it, common scientific wisdom suggests that the universe is about 15 billion years old (although they may have revised their dating since I last heard about it). We can easily extend our current figure of one year to count many years. Our calculator will be much faster if we break the calculation down to powers of two and just use the "square" operation, so let's choose a nice even power of two like 2^34, which is about 17 billion (17,179,869,184 to be precise). The new figure is:
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999989463961512816564762914005246488858434168051444149065728
The chances of failure are still essentially 100%, even after 2^34 years. Hmmm. It doesn't look like were are going to get very far with this, but just for the heck of it, let's see if we are any better off with a lot of monkeys. Let's not hold back here -- I hypothesize 17 billion galaxies, each containing 17 billion habitable planets, each planet with 17 billion monkeys each typing away and producing one line per second for 17 billion years. What are the chances of the phrase "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION." not being included in the output?
0.999999999999946575937950778196079485682838665648264132188104299326596142975867879656916416973433628
I'd bet money on that. It's about 99.999999999995% sure that they would fail to produce the sentence. Are you astounded? It's such a trivial requirement, right? Just one puny sentence. And yet the figures keep coming up "impossible". Where have we made a mistake? We have fallen into the same trap as the politician who was the subject of my joke, way back up there. We have failed to appreciate the sheer magnitude of the problem. Let's look at it one more time.
The number of 41-character strings that are possible with a 32-character alphabet is 32^41. According to dc, this value is as follows.
51422017416287688817342786954917203280710495801049370729644032
In case you don't feel like counting, this value is 62 digits long. In our hypothesising above, we imagined 17 billion galaxies, each with 17 billion planets, each with 17 billion monkeys, each of which was producing a line of text per second for 17 billion years. How many lines of text did we wind up producing in this experiment? The math is as follows:
2^34 * 2^34 * 2^34 * 2^34 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60
And the answer is as follows:
2747173049143991138247931294711870033017962496000
Once again, in case you don't feel like counting, the answer is 49 digits long. Now, there is no guarantee that our monkeys are going to type something different every time, but even if we managed to rig up the experiment so that they never tried the same thing twice, they have still only produced 1/18,718,157,355,362 of the possible alternatives. The denominator in that fraction is 14 digits long, by the way. It's a figure that's vastly bigger than anything you would come across in the real world. Is it any wonder, in light of that, that it is so damn hard to get the right answer by accident? "
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I don't need the sophistry.
Seems you like to claim sophistry at every turn. Your characterization as such does not make it so.
The point is just because you think there is only an evolutionary process
even possible for the advancement of species; that is just a guess for you.
Where did I say there was only one? I clearly said DNA is not necessarily involved, yet there is clearly no other way in this universe that complexity has formed. ALL complex things began as simpler things and were built upon, step-by-step. If you think it can happen other ways, you are free to provide some examples but until then, I think it is pretty safe to say other methods will violate known physical laws.
To suggest and dismiss I can't imagine an alternative as your brush off; that just mean you need to read up on exo-biology.
LOL. I am quite familiar with the current state of exobiology and what I'm proposing is exactly in line.
I see that you are less a good thinker than it seems. Your entire style is Ego and stupid rude. So, like Buck, you also hide behind fake, tough guy approach.
So childish to dismiss any discussion
with...you are wrong.
WTF? Now insults? Grow the fuck up. If you can't have an adult conversation without your anger and condescension, I'm not interested in talking to you anyway.
 

Seedling

Well-Known Member
well done you've just described exactly what happened on earth
Good, I got my point across!

a computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on? or a biological computer like us?
A computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on. I ask you, can a wired computer come from a massive body given enough time??

a computer with wires evolving of its own accord wouldnt happen.
Not only could it happen, it did happen.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Good, I got my point across!



A computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on. I ask you, can a wired computer come from a massive body given enough time??



Not only could it happen, it did happen.
But "of its own accord" can properly be represented by "in an unguided manner". Our computers are clearly the products of (arguably!) intelligent design. cn
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Good, I got my point across!



A computer as in the metals and wires version we're typing on. I ask you, can a wired computer come from a massive body given enough time??



Not only could it happen, it did happen.
well i'd have to argue against "its own accord" as there was biological input before the electrical and im unaware of any that survive unassisted

but apart from that its pretty close to your drag racing nitro car?


EDIT ninja'd by the bear
 

Seedling

Well-Known Member
But "of its own accord" can properly be represented by "in an unguided manner". Our computers are clearly the products of (arguably!) intelligent design. cn
No evolution occurs under "it's own accord." Evolution is change. You start with a point in time and describe the environment, and you pick a later point in time and describe the differences, the change that has occurred.

The universe was an enormous massive body occupying a very tiny volume in space, and 13.7 billion years later there were computers.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
My point about exobiology is that it is an anthropomorphic joke

The point of science is to disagree with amateur thinking

Maybe more si-fi ?
 

fb360

Active Member
As has already been pointed out numerous times by numerous people we didn't invent math, we simply discovered it. No one is proposing that an intelligent species across the universe will use the symbols 3.1415 to represent the value of pi, however they will derive the exact same value for pi. Likewise they most likely will not use a, b, and c to represent pythagorean theorem, nor will they call it pythagorean theorem. But the theorem will be valid none-the-less.

No one is saying if you drop me off on pandora and the locals hand me a calculus book written in their own language, that I will immediately be able to decipher it and understand it. But if you convert their symbols into the ones that you are familiar with they will be the EXACT same. This is not true for other invented languages. English will not translate to japanese letter for letter, and is not constructed the exact same. The calculus will translate letter for letter though, or else one of the civilizations has made a mistake.
I understand your point, and I think it is valid, however it does not cause mine to become invalid. I was merely speculating, while you are hypothesizing based upon your observations as a human.
What I do not agree with, is that we discovered mathematics. That statement is incorrect. Rather, we discovered that our world is bound by physical constraints we call laws, and then we invented a language to express such laws; mathematics.

Newton didn't write equations for gravity before the apple hit him on the head... First gravity happened, he observed it, and then created a way to define it in an understandable manner to other humans; mathematics is that language.

The egyptians didn't write math for geometry before discovering that certain ratios and constants hold. Then they wrote the math to describe it. They are actually accredited with inventing engineering.

You would be correct in saying that we discovered physics, but you are not correct in saying we discovered mathematics. And furthermore, our "mathematics" language is extremely primitive, with calculus only being about 300 years old. We still add new expressions to our mathematics everyday. It is a work in progress as I stated in my very first post. Ergo, we did not discover it, we are continuously defining it.

Just because it was developed by humans, does not make it uniquely human.

And I already explained how I am not using that assumption. Continuing to accuse me of that does not make you right.
Making up fantasy ideas about what other creatures might be is great, however if you violate laws of physics and nature in doing so, your ideas are probably unlikely. If a species can figure out how to separate consciousness from a physical form, then they must have started with a physical form. If you believe that intelligent energy beings can come into existence without evolution, then that's equivalent to gods and ghosts and I will dismiss that until you or anyone else can provide evidence that such a thing can possibly exist.
They will surely have a physical presence, and if they have technology, then they must have a way to manipulate the environment. How can you disagree with these basic assumptions?

NOOOO! No I'm not. You just can't read very well.
It is you who can't read well... I never disagreed with the fact that another intelligent life form might also know mathematics and have physical form... As I CLEARLY mentioned, I like to keep my mind open, and not close any doors because we continuously prove to ourselves that we basically know shit.

You just like to think it's fact that our little human world and the physics we observe here, are certain and factual everywhere else... We barely know physics in our solar system genius. Closing your mind is naive and stupid. You can continue to think you don't have a narrow vision in terms of knowledge in this argument, but you are becoming comical.
 

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
I understand your point, and I think it is valid, however it does not cause mine to become invalid. I was merely speculating, while you are hypothesizing based upon your observations as a human.
What I do not agree with, is that we discovered mathematics. That statement is incorrect. Rather, we discovered that our world is bound by physical constraints we call laws, and then we invented a language to express such laws; mathematics.

Newton didn't write equations for gravity before the apple hit him on the head... First gravity happened, he observed it, and then created a way to define it in an understandable manner to other humans; mathematics is that language.

The egyptians didn't write math for geometry before discovering that certain ratios and constants hold. Then they wrote the math to describe it. They are actually accredited with inventing engineering.

You would be correct in saying that we discovered physics, but you are not correct in saying we discovered mathematics. And furthermore, our "mathematics" language is extremely primitive, with calculus only being about 300 years old. We still add new expressions to our mathematics everyday. It is a work in progress as I stated in my very first post. Ergo, we did not discover it, we are continuously defining it.
I never claimed gravity didn't exist before newton wrote the equations, in fact my point is the exact opposite. Gravity existed independent of newton, everywhere. He merely discovered the mathematical representation - the same as any other intelligent species would. Perhaps they would also discover a closer approximation with the equations of relativity. And maybe they are more advanced than us and have discovered the next theory beyond relativity that includes gravity as a fundamental force and works in all situations from the quantum to the grand.

You seem to be strengthening my point with every example you give.
 

Seedling

Well-Known Member
I never claimed gravity didn't exist before newton wrote the equations, in fact my point is the exact opposite. Gravity existed independent of newton, everywhere. He merely discovered the mathematical representation - the same as any other intelligent species would. Perhaps they would also discover a closer approximation with the equations of relativity. And maybe they are more advanced than us and have discovered the next theory beyond relativity that includes gravity as a fundamental force and works in all situations from the quantum to the grand.
He questioned what caused what he observed, the acceleration of an object towards another object, which we call gravity, and he answered himself something to the effect of "objects of mass attract one another." He then used math to describe his idea. The problem lies in the fact that his math may be self consistent, but his idea is incorrect! So what are we left with, a bunch of math describing a non-reality.

In reality gravity doesn't work like Newton's idea, and the math is not accurate enough to describe reality correctly. So, in my book, that's 0 for 2.

If he'd have thought it through well enough he would have realized that objects DON'T "attract one another."
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
It is you who can't read well... I never disagreed with the fact that another intelligent life form might also know mathematics and have physical form... As I CLEARLY mentioned, I like to keep my mind open, and not close any doors because we continuously prove to ourselves that we basically know shit.

You just like to think it's fact that our little human world and the physics we observe here, are certain and factual everywhere else... We barely know physics in our solar system genius. Closing your mind is naive and stupid. You can continue to think you don't have a narrow vision in terms of knowledge in this argument, but you are becoming comical.
One of the main assumptions of physics is that laws of nature do not change depending on where you are. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that we don't know physics in our solar system.

BTW, it always seem that the first to resort to name calling usually doesn't have a strong argument. If you're going to continue to be a rude asshole, just stop responding to me since I'm not interested in a flame war. If you can keep from throwing around personal attacks, by all means, we can continue to discuss this.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
What a cozy idea, that we discovered the Math. The Rosetta stone of the Universe!!!

Such hubris. We discovered some local physics. We created a precise language to describe that. We enhance the language into dialects like Tensors, Matrix Algebra, Calculus, etc. It's a language that can call a spade a spade. But, it is detailed enough to actually re-produce that implement exactly. Without math, there is no ability to record this level of detail. Math is just words we made up to help us.

We observe and assume that Math is holy and sacrosanct, but it is not. Our own observational abilities are limited and always will be.
Our imagination is hampered by that simple fact. We simply cannot imagine what observational powers a non-human intellect might posses or even how they came to possess them. We can't imagine any mechanism that is far beyond our experience.

An alien's entire existence might seem like magic. It might seem that it is not biology based, at all.

The "tech" of the Universe could very easily produce a thinking rock that can make sounds, but it's inner observational powers are strangely non-causal. Sufficiently high tech, even natural tech can seem like magic.

How the smart rock does anything or how it knows so much could always remain a mystery to us. How it can communicate?
Where are all these other Rocks it "mentions?"

We might find that our cumbersome math is just sticks and stones to a true thinker. They may only appear to exist to us.
Magic.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
There certainly are some aspects of math that were invented but I find it incredibly naive to think that f=ma, e=mc^2, Maxwell's equations or any of hundreds of others somehow were created by us and not some inherent part of nature. Do you or anyone else have a good explanation as to why the universe seems to be able to be described so succinctly using mathematics? Do you actually believe other intelligent beings would not come up with the exact same relationships among variables as we have? If they can't figure out f=ma, then how do you suppose that they can have technology?
 
Top