What does probability say to you?

[everymansmedium]

This thread is about logic and probability. There are things that go unnoticed all over our world that are telling us things that might help us to discover the truth about our world.

Here is one thing to start with that never gets sufficient attention.

----------------
The odds of random data: The number of possible characters in the data system with an exponent equal to the number of characters in the data packet.

If everything That lives is composed of data, genetic data and learned or experienced data.
Now if we decide that there is no divine force to intervene. Then A living thing must be some type of chemical computer. A regenerative chemical computer. Without divine intervention then it must be a spontaneous regenerative chemical computer.

1st question: What is the smallest data packet that is sufficient to sustain a regenerative life form?
Can it be done in less than 99 characters or one line of text plus 20 more characters.
Can anyone create life using only 99 characters.
The odds of 99 characters happening at random is the number 255 with an exponent of 99
How huge is that number?
If you were to calculate how many of the smallest known particles, would fit in the known universe, it would not be as large as the odds of 99 characters occurring at random.

---------------stop this is a new thought.

Here is one more to think about.
How many colonies would a colonizer colonize, If a colonizer could colonize a colony?
Now take that as a general universal rule through out our universe. To calculate the odds of being a colonized planet.
This rule would only apply to colonies that are made up of planets with members that are capable of colonizing a planet.
If this was a colonized planet what would be the signature of a society that engineers planets and later colonizes them?
I will answer this when I return …… John

[Graybeard]

This thread is about logic and probability.

Great thread starter John.

One question first. You state that the thread is about logic and probability, But it appears to be more about Natural Selection and Intelligent Design. Is this the case?

I'm interested either way, but would much prefer to know which it is.

The odds of random data: The number of possible characters in the data system with an exponent equal to the number of characters in the data packet.

Not sure what your saying here. The odds of a number between 1 and 100 being randomly selected is 100 to 1.

If everything That lives is composed of data, genetic data and learned or experienced data. Now if we decide that there is no divine force to intervene. Then A living thing must be some type of chemical computer. A regenerative chemical computer. Without divine intervention then it must be a spontaneous regenerative chemical computer.

Yes. I sort of agree, altho I don't know what you mean by spontaneous, to reproduce requires outside resources?

How many colonies would a colonizer colonize, If a colonizer could colonize a colony?

You've lost me here mate. LOL. Look forward to your next post, perhaps you could start with some simpler questions.

cool bananas ... greg

[everymansmedium]

What does probability say to you? Greybeard #2:
Hi Greg:

One question first. You state that the thread is about logic and probability, But it appears to be more about Natural Selection and Intelligent Design. Is this the case?

I'm interested either way, but would much prefer to know which it is.

The thread is about probability. In this case it might end up with a look at the probability that might give us some odds as to deciding on either natural selection or intelligent design relative to what we might find. Let us look to see what we can dig up to add weight to one or the other. Not that I think It will make any difference in any ones decision. Just to create a picture that we can stand back and look at objectively. There are a number of issues that could be added to this list. I do not intend to generate any intense debate. I just wish to add the information that we can all add to a list for each. We may at a later time take that list and start a new thread that we can debate within. This subject is meant to be VERY WIDE. It may end up starting many threads for many people. But here in this one I only want to make a list of the items effecting the probabilities. In this case it is relative to natural selection / Intelligent design.

NEXT:
The odds of random data:

” The number of possible characters in the data system with an exponent equal to the number of characters in the data packet.”
Not sure what your saying here.
Initially I used the number 255 as this is for 8 bit data

This is the mathematical odds of any specific data packet happening at random.
Simplified data. As follows
26 alpha-lo 26 alpha-hi 10 numbers 36 possible pun = 98 possible characters
This is using our current ASCII system. You might want to use a base 5 as in the genetic code.
It does not make much difference as the odds of any data packet happening at random is huge.
As: The exponent = the number of characters in the packet.


If everything That lives is composed of data, genetic data and learned or experienced data. Now if we decide that there is no divine force to intervene. Then A living thing must be some type of chemical computer. A regenerative chemical computer. Without divine intervention then it must be a spontaneous regenerative chemical computer.

Yes. I sort of agree, altho I don't know what you mean by spontaneous, to reproduce requires outside resources?

The initial start must be most basic. Simple single cell division. The most basic form of life that can continue/regenerate. We are trying to guess at the smallest possible data packet that will result in the most basic form of sustainable life. This will give us the odds of it happening at random. This might be interesting to estimate this number. I am sure that we will need some help from those that have a more intimate relationship with biochemistry than I have. I did have hopes on finding some people here that might make a best guess at this.

NEXT:
How many colonies would a colonizer colonize, If a colonizer could colonize a colony?
You've lost me here mate. LOL. Look forward to your next post, perhaps you could start with some simpler questions.
The answer to that question is simply >1, It might be infinitely >1. But this thought says if there is any race of beings colonizing planets anywhere in the universe, they alter the odds of a planet being colonized because they colonize more that one planet. And each planet that they colonize may also colonize more than one. This is a very profound concept because it indicates a trend. Any that know about probability know that a trend can play a big part in calculating the odds of any occurrence. The occurrence that we might be concerned with is:

How did we get here? I think I have all possibilities cataloged.
#1: We began here as the result of a random act.
#2: We began here as the result of divine intervention.
#3: We are a colony of some other society that we have forgotten.
#4: Our seed was brought here from elsewhere by an intelligent source.
#5: Our seed came from space as the result of a previous cause.

I also promised that I would post some thoughts about what I think relative to our beginning here on this planet Earth.

If a potential planetary engineer was approaching our solar system or any other solar system what might they do as they came into our solar system? They know they are going to need large amounts of water. The outer shell of a star system normally collects the lighter of the elements because of the smaller effects of gravity balanced against the effect of the radiation of the star to effectively push the lighter particles to a shell around the star system called the outer shell. This shell is the place of comets and asteroids of ice. This is our first stop. We place mass propulsion devices on some of the ice asteroids and direct them to an orbit closer to the star. This is to put them within our reach as we enter the livable band about the star. Once we have started enough ice moving toward the living range of the star we may now proceed to there ourselves. When we get there we find 3 planets that are in the range of a possible colony. We have no way of knowing what the levels of soluble minerals are going to be until we put the water down onto the planet. So it is a bit of a crap shoot. But we have 3 planets to try. We send the ice asteroids into 2 orbits from opposite directions on each of the 3 planets. We then send a number of seed capsules to all of the planets. These contain what is the beginning of the biological needs to start life on the planet. These capsules are set to open after about a year on the surface. They are put in places that will flood when the water comes. The year of waiting is to allow for stabilization. Then we document the process and leave to go elsewhere. When the next visit occurs it might be tens of thousands of years after the engineering process. When they return the find that the innermost planet went runaway thermal and was covered with very hot clouds, also the soluble mineral turned out to be disagreeable. Also the outer planet had insufficient mass to hold the water and it evaporated back into space except for a small amount that remained frozen at the poles. However the 3rd planet remains viable. A colony of 144000 people are left to colonize this planet. These colonists are warned that it will be 2000 years between visits. There are not worried they have a whole planet for themselves. A beautiful new world.

Obviously this is just a story. But it is based on a few facts. #1: The lighter elements of a solar system normally accumulate in the outer shell. This includes water in the form of ice. As it is based on the lightest gas and the 8th lightest gas. Question is the water that we find on earth out of place. What are the odds of it getting here without help? Also is there large amounts of water on Venus? Is there evidence that there was at one time large amounts of water on Mars? Where did all of this water come from? Or Might this be considered to be ear marks of colonization and planetary engineering.

I think eventually we might use this to start a separate thread called, “Is it possible we a colonized planet?” but before we do lets give it a chance to gather some data about both of these probabilities.
John.

[Graybeard]

John ... just logged on and am at work. Give me an hour or two so that I can asorb what you have posted. Sounds really interesting.

Will be back here soon

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

The initial start must be most basic. Simple single cell division. The most basic form of life that can continue/regenerate. We are trying to guess at the smallest possible data packet that will result in the most basic form of sustainable life.

This will give us the odds of it happening at random. This might be interesting to estimate this number.

John, I think we should start here. But in order to calculate the odds of the required data packet coming into being by a random process we first need to establish the set boundaries of where we draw the random number from.

IE: what inorganics, sugars, etc were already present (by selective random processes of course) prior to the sustainable packet coming into existence. Remember, each one is a stepping stone, which reduces the improbability of the final data packet we have fixed on. The single celled critter

NEXT:
How many colonies would a colonizer colonize, If a colonizer could colonize a colony?

The answer to that question is simply >1, It might be infinitely >1. But this thought says if there is any race of beings colonizing planets anywhere in the universe, they alter the odds of a planet being colonized because they colonize more that one planet. And each planet that they colonize may also colonize more than one. This is a very profound concept because it indicates a trend. Any that know about probability know that a trend can play a big part in calculating the odds of any occurrence. The occurrence that we might be concerned with is:

How did we get here? I think I have all possibilities cataloged.
#1: We began here as the result of a random act.
#2: We began here as the result of divine intervention.
#3: We are a colony of some other society that we have forgotten.
#4: Our seed was brought here from elsewhere by an intelligent source.
#5: Our seed came from space as the result of a previous cause.

John, I have read all this and I think its very good. You have obviously given a lot of thought in the quiet wee hours to this. I think you have enough in this post to start many threads. If you want i would prefer to kick off with the single celled critter and build up to the rest. Others may think different, I am happy to go with the flow

cool bananas ... greg

[everymansmedium]

Hello Greg:
I figure people will pick up on what item they feel that they have information to add to.

I Listed that thought first as I also think this holds the greatest possibilities of learning something.
I have little knowledge that I can add relative to the biological and chemical processes.
I do however have quite a good grip on data packets. I have worked with computers sense the very beginning in the mid 60’s. When the memory systems are 4 bits to a single board. Memory conservation is an art that is all but forgotten now. I still own a C compiler that can produce an executable of 8k or less.
I have also worked with everything from machine language, basic, C, up to and including Prolog.

About the complexity of regeneration, It is typically many times more complex than the device that that is reproduced. We consider a copy command within a system like DOS. This is to make a binary copy of a binary file. This is the simplest possible copy. It consists of identify string as per instructions in the operating system. These instructions have rules for string identification and character identification. Then when the string is identified it must identify all the characters contained within the string, Then it must count all the characters, Then it must copy and write all the characters. If I did not write this in an extremely simplified manner I would have run out of space and bored everyone completely with the process of copying a simple binary file. The reason for this is with every copy you must have with the copy a copy of the environment rules to make the copy recognizable to the environment that you copy within.

You might also consider a look at the manufacturing system that is beginning to take shape before our very eyes. If you go into the factories that are building computer boards. They are mostly built by automation systems that are automated assembly lines made up of complex machines that place and solder the components onto these micro processor boards. They also test and grade these boards. If you look closely you will see that the automation equipment is being controlled by the same processor boards that they manufacture. This process is also true of the components that are being placed on these boards. They also are being manufactured by an automation process that is also controlled by these very same boards. This is beginning to look a bit like a reproduction process. However once again you see the complexity is increased by many fold compared to the single processor board, That is the end product

I am sure this is where the knowledge of genetics comes in, as I assume that the genetic system has ways of simplifying this process. It must for with the methods available to computer languages, life happening at random would be very improbable. So I look at this question in this way, If the genetic process has a way of simplifying this process, then it would be worth finding a way to simulate this process so as to improve our abilities with our computer languages.
If however this in not the case then we have to consider the random beginning of life as improbable and proceed to seek the intelligent source.

In either case the idea of the genetic code as a language also indicates another paradox as it would be the only data language that is created at random. So I guess we have a 2 fold problem.

How simple can the process of regeneration be made?
Is the genetic code truly a language? It does take recorded data and transfer that information in a way that results with a specific life form. (Specific data = species)?
It appears to me, to be a language.
John.

[Graybeard]

I have little knowledge that I can add relative to the biological and chemical processes.
I do however have quite a good grip on data packets. I have worked with computers sense the very beginning in the mid 60’s. When the memory systems are 4 bits to a single board. Memory conservation is an art that is all but forgotten now. I still own a C compiler that can produce an executable of 8k or less.
I have also worked with everything from machine language, basic, C, up to and including Prolog.

Yes. Good. I too have a fair bit of computer knowledge. But mine is mostly is databases. The code I use is SQL. Altho I do remember a bit of C++ from uni.

About the complexity of regeneration, It is typically many times more complex than the device that that is reproduced. We consider a copy command within a system like DOS. This is to make a binary copy of a binary file. This is the simplest possible copy. It consists of identify string as per instructions in the operating system. These instructions have rules for string identification and character identification. Then when the string is identified it must identify all the characters contained within the string, Then it must count all the characters, Then it must copy and write all the characters. If I did not write this in an extremely simplified manner I would have run out of space and bored everyone completely with the process of copying a simple binary file. The reason for this is with every copy you must have with the copy a copy of the environment rules to make the copy recognizable to the environment that you copy within.

Good point. Lets refer to the information as Base Data' and the environmental rules as 'Meta Data'

You might also consider a look at the manufacturing system that is beginning to take shape before our very eyes. If you go into the factories that are building computer boards. They are mostly built by automation systems that are automated assembly lines made up of complex machines that place and solder the components onto these micro processor boards. They also test and grade these boards. If you look closely you will see that the automation equipment is being controlled by the same processor boards that they manufacture. This process is also true of the components that are being placed on these boards. They also are being manufactured by an automation process that is also controlled by these very same boards. This is beginning to look a bit like a reproduction process. However once again you see the complexity is increased by many fold compared to the single processor board, That is the end product

True, but the end product is ubiquitous. It can be used in the more complex processes. This would seem to indicate that we are dealing with 'meta Data'. We are building layers onto the original product without changing its hardware.

In either case the idea of the genetic code as a language also indicates another paradox as it would be the only data language that is created at random. So I guess we have a 2 fold problem.

How simple can the process of regeneration be made?
Is the genetic code truly a language? It does take recorded data and transfer that information in a way that results with a specific life form. (Specific data = species)?
It appears to me, to be a language.
John.

You have made a number of points in this last quote. A data language created at random wouldn't necessarily be a paradox ... especially if it was the first language. This is not really an issue with me as I look at it.

To give you my perspective in simple form. I have stopped asking 'Why', I now only ask 'How'. If you ask Why, you start down a road looking for a purpose or design and ultimately you will find proof of this, good convincing proof.

But if you can stand back from your own deductions and ask How, you will find an answer as equally convincing, one that has no need to be qualified with any unknown, such as a creator or designer.

The Universe is evolving, has been ever since the Big Bang or Big expansion, whichever you prefer. Evolution occurs through minute, initially indistinguishable, steps. Each step reduces the improbability level of the next one occurring. The next step is aways in the direction that the previous step reached towards.

Some steps we (Humans) look upon as huge milestones, such as the beginning of life. But the step in evolution from inorganic sugar to organic compound was simply a number of small, indistinguishable steps taken one at a time. The only condition being that each step must be stable in its environment (natural selection)

In other words, Life is a human perception. Evolution only recognises progress without differentation. The improbability of all this is in the initial outrage to our common sense that a random process implies. Too many fortuitious coincidences seem to be required.

But if you approach it with an open viewpoint it becomes a simple random process, perfectly explainable mathematically. What appears at first glance as impossible odds is soon balanced by the realisation of the infinite attempts made to adapt to any specific environment. But it has no Why, it only has a How!

Why is not relevant to evolution or quantum mechanics. Both deal in probabilities and improbabilities.

look forward to your next post ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

During evolution, the fortuitious mutations lived on in their bearers, while the many more detrimental ones often led to instant death of the unfortunates.

[everymansmedium]

Hello Austin:
This is true. But it is the very begining that I was thinking about.
The initial hurdle!
To start the process.
John

[everymansmedium]

Hello Greg:
Before I post let me say that I am very glad you and Austin are here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a feeling that we may need 3 categories eventually as the genetic data is an extreme basic. The research that is to follow the human genome project is looking at a new part of the language that they have identified as the data that acts as a control switch to turn the genes on and off. They also have discovered that this data is variable within a single lifetime or even shorter. It may be approaching what we call long term (Meta data) information. They have some interesting work that is going on that indicates huge alterations in a single generation in mice. Maybe we might consider (Base-A-Data)=genetic, (Base-B-Data)=must look up the term they used, And (Meta-Data). I forgot the term for this controller of the switching. It seems my own short term memory needs some reinforcement.


Relative to the complex regeneration process being cataloged as Meta Data I will agree if it is considered to be a Long term Meta that is also as a Base-B so it becomes inherent information for the next generation.

I will agree but we must consider the 3 separate categories so that the process itself becomes inherent. It starts as Meta Data becomes Base-B so that it also becomes inherent. This new information about the 3 layers of memory might be all we needed to begin to see some sense in this. This idea of 3 layers has my ideas flying about right now. Thinking of the uses of this in my own experiments that have been up till now only 2. My own research that is effected is at RoseandClem.com.
R-obot O-perating S-ystem E-xecutive and C-ommunication LE-arning M-achine.

I dropped the thought of Genetics as a language for the time being to simplify. We might just stick to the one topic at a time.

About the how and why questions. I agree that the question how is a question that is put to science while the question why is put to the will or a quest for a motivation factor, Divine or otherwise.

The only problem that I have with your thoughts about a random process that manages to maintain a VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTION = CONTINUE = A CONSTANT, with out the verification that this constant is there at the basis.

I felt exactly the same when I read the academic response to the thought that the probabilities of data happening at random was of itself an indication of the existence of some director of the data to create these seemingly impossible results.

But I also saw that these were capital driven institutions that could not maintain that there is a God. They would then be required to say that they knew nothing at all about what might be the most important discovery of mankind. I do not think they would still be in existence if they had been honest. About this situation. If you think that this is a single example of a point that might be specific to a capital driven system you might also look at the point that I began my studies. The Dilemma of Free will in the Theory of Determinism. This is another point that the capital institutions scampered away from the divine path like scared rabbits. They were more ready to accept Marx even if it cost them the idea of the most valued commodity in the USA, there FREEDOM. They were more willing to give up there freedom than to touch on the divine path, that frightens them like rabbits from my cats. There is NOTHING in the capital academic systems more frightening than the thought of accepting the idea of the divine. So I guess I will continue to see this as an inherent conflict of interest from the capital education system.

Do you remember what happened when we found the cure for polio? What did the capital medical system learn by this. They learned “do not ever cure anything it will upset the marketplace.”
Your capital driven education may be flawed by conflict of interest. This I think may or may not put us at an impasse. I hope that it does not. For I find no conflict between any that have been educated in this manner. I just feel that I must be free to dismiss the part of your system that I see as flawed. I am afraid that this is one that I can not accept. I do believe that intelligent data creates more data. I do not believe that from the beginning that a clump of nothing can or will become the beginning of a sustaining process.
I firmly believe that this is a CAPITAL COP OUT. I might accept that a more realistic odds reduction could take place if we could find a very simple example of regeneration requiring a very small data packet. This I might accept. But Do not expect me to believe what was nothing more than a capital cop out by the existing education system. When I refused this same on the nightline blog sight the blog itself was gone within 2 weeks. No matter how big the beast if you know where it is most sensitive you can make it dance.

Maybe this is the reason that there has always been a conflict between many of the religions and the concept of wealth.
What would happen if the word came out that MIT found and verifies evidence confirming the existence of the divine force? What might happen in the stock market or in our government or in a multitude of places. You and I know, no matter how compelling the information this can not and will not ever happen under capitalism. So we can debate until we are blue in the face, no matter what we find, The more compelling it is, The less attention it will get. People are just not ready to go there. They are attracted to information until it scares them one time then they are gone, never to be seen again. I have been told many times that some of my thoughts frighten people. My own wife, sister, 2 out of 3 of my own children and 90% of the people that I know absolutely refuse to talk about it. My wife was present when my experience took place in 1970, She absolutely refuses to talk about the experience. My visit to 2 different hospitals, they claim to have no record of my visit. My sister was there she will at least verify that I did in fact go to the hospitals on that day. But will not talk about why. I have seen first hand how they run. Just like the 3 blind mice.
I have very few friends that will talk about this. I hope that you and some of the people here on the TOEQUEST remain as friends that will talk about this. I have been dealing with what I know for 37 years this year. I consider myself to be a thousand fold stronger because of carrying this on my back alone for so long. I am less tired now than I was 7 years ago when I began talking about this on the internet. Maybe I am getting stronger for a reason. I was also told that there are more like me. Though I have never been able to find them. Forgive me for carrying on so. But I have been at this point in so many conversations that always seem to end here. I hope that this one will not.

John.