That’s how you framed it back in post 242, and it was just as vague then which is why you’ve been getting the responses you have. As it is written, there cannot be an answer.
1 Like
That’s not how I see it
The problem is that even though choosing 3 numbers is possible, it seems impossible to attach a probability to the outcome.
That is what I think @jammycakes confirmed, but I could be wrong about that, and it wouldn’t be the first time I misread something
It would be easier and more agreeable to simply say mutations appear to be random
Maybe there was some confusion introduced here…because we had moved on to Symbiogenesis…where it appeared the comment (not made by you) regarding it seemed to indicate the theory was being taken as evolutionary fact.
It is impossible because the question makes it impossible – probabilities cannot be derived from immensely vague parameters. One may as well ask, “Which is more probable, a mushroom omelet or a car crash?” – except that that question actually has far better parameters than the question as stated!
What does “agreeable” have to do with anything? Whether or not something “appears” to be random has no bearing on whether or not it is.
This is why science has strict definitions: it avoids all the vague uncertainty and uselessness of subjective assertions.
I didn’t see that the lines on a paraglider and symbiogenesis were related, but oh, well.
That’s my point
This is remarkablely similiar to how science cannot determine whether something is undetermined or determined by something which is undetermined
Like whether something just happens or something happens and is caused by something that doesn’t happen
Like using words with one more than meaning in the exact same context?
Computers making choices is a very specific parameter. I think you have your terms mixed up.
Edit: I reached my 3 comment limit, so I’ll write this here
Sorry, I missed the question. I didn’t know symbiogenesis was the leading theory on the evolution of eukaryotes.
It’s possible. I don’t have any reason to doubt that’s how it happened.
1 Like
I recently watched and thoroughly enjoyed Netflix’s rerun The Imitation Game Official Trailer #1 (2014) - Benedict Cumberbatch Movie
2 Likes
This is why one geology professor insisted we needed to expand our vocabulary: the more words you know, the less likely it is that you’ll trip over the above issue.
2 Likes
Your question was too vague to provide any parameters for determining any probability – what the ‘choice’ comes from is irrelevant.
The basis for the numbers chosen is without reference hence the impossibility of determining the probability
yeah i must accept this criticism…agreed and point taken.
AI’s use pseudo-random number generators, so I’m not sure why you keep referring to them.
Why?
1 Like
That’s what I have been saying all along. From an earlier post:
“This is why I have been very careful with how I describe these processes. For example, I stated that the data we have on mutations is indistinguishable from being random with respect to fitness. This is the standard that science uses. It doesn’t pronounce that mutations are “truly” random in a metaphysical or philosophical manner. However, for the sake of pragmatism science has adopted parsimony which accepts lower causes when they are found to be sufficient. A random process is sufficient for explaining mutations, so that is the tentative conclusion science reaches. Could God be part of the process, giving it purpose? Could be, but that is not something science can rule in or rule out. Science can only go as far as data and empiricism will let us.”
4 Likes
No, it isn’t. If you understood anything about computers you would know this. What is the range of numbers it is choosing between? What pseudo-random number generator is it using (e.g. Mersenne Twister)? How many trials are we running?
Here is an analogy for you. I have a huge garbage bag full of tiles. I pull out a tile with the number 953354 on it. With just that info, what is the probability of pulling out a tile with that number on it?
1 Like
I understand that is how it currently works. This is why I referenced a program which chooses and why I referenced quantum computing as a possible way of achieving programs that choose numbers.
Your previous comments seemed to indicate your appreciation for how quantum computing may achieve true randomness.
Here’s one. It’s the terminology that is tricky.