----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson" <burgy@compuserve.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 2:42 AM
> Glenn replied (I clip parts of his reply for brevity):
>
> "Why? It is the rules that hold chance in control. Chance operates in part
> of
> the algorithm but the rules of motion don't change. Download the program
> and run it over and over--see if you can ever get even a slight variation
> to the gasket."
>
> I have no doubt that is true. But that is hardly my point. Let me try
this.
> Let me design a new random number generator which REALLY generates random
> numbers, and feed those numers as input to your program. Let me run that
> program for an infinite length of time. I guarantee that there will be an
> infinite number of times the gasket won't appear -- unless you call an
> absolutely straight line a gasket.
First, I did agree with you this is certainly possible. But the solution to
that is if the real random number generator is generating 1's then merely
let the program run longer. Eventually it will cease its aberation and
produce a gasket.
>
> You write: "The game of bridge is not in anyway analogous to the system I
> am describing."
>
> In no way? Come on. It is analgous to the extent both depend on random
> data, inthe case of bridge, random shuffles.
I stand corrected you are right here that chance is involved in both.
> In your reply to Dave, you wrote:
>
> "It can be due to personal choice. Lets replace the dot with an
intelligent
> agent. The dot has a choice, do the moral thing and move halfway to dot 1,
> do the sinful thing and move halfway to dot 2 or do a neutral thing an
> move
> halfway to dot 3. As with all of us in life, we do some moral things, some
> bad things and some that really don't make a difference (like belching in
> public). This intelligent agent will now produce a Sierpinski's gasket as
> surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. So these systems actually illustrate
> that God could self-limit his knowledge of which choice we will make, but
> our life will still provide the pattern required to fit into his global
> scheme."
>
> I understand your analogy. Gosh -- I keep saying that -- you keep going
> over the obvious. It must be because of my imprecise writing.
Yeah, but I was writing to Dave here, not particularly to you. Dave had
implied (or I had inferred) that the chance was not the same thing as a live
human. One of the properties of a living intelligent agent is that he/she
is unpredictable.
>
> You say "So these systems actually illustrate
> that God could self-limit his knowledge of which choice we will make, but
> our life will still provide the pattern required to fit into his global
> scheme."
>
> And I say, not so. Look. I'm the dot. Constrained, as you say. I choose
> "sin"
> as my choice in every case. The gasket does not appear. Was my choice of
> "sin" necessary to provide God's pattern for his global scheme? If so, I
am
> not responsible, and should not be
> judged. But this is an inconsistency!
I don't think you can chose to sin everytime. It is impossible. Even Jesus
said that a father, being bad will still give good things to his children
(my addition--at least occasionally.) And everyone must do some things that
are morally neutral (like eating). So given the rules I laid out, it is
impossible to choose one dot all the time.
>
> Finally, you send a third post in which you say:
>
> "If this is what you mean by the gasket not appearing, then I would say
> that
> the odds are so small as to be non-existent."
>
> Small odds are not zero odds, my friend.
I do agree with you here, but the dot is still constrained to move in a
certain pattern and even within the triangle, certain places are forbidden
to the dot. They just won't go there. They can't go there.
>
> "If your random number
> generator always gave out a 1 rather than a mixture of 1, 2, and 3, then I
> would suggest that you don't have a random number generator. Say you are
on
> a statistical fluke of 1's. Would you believe in a statistical fluke of
> 20,000 ones being generated to the exclusion of 2 and 3? It takes about
> 20,000 iterations of the program before the pattern is discernable. I
would
> say that if you generated 20,000 1's, then you don't have a random number
> generator--you programmed it wrong."
>
> I'd agree. But not if I were examining an infinite string of numbers, in
> which 20,000 1s
> will appear together an infinite number of times.
It is impossible to examine an infinite number of infinite strings of
numbers. All you have is 10^80 particles in this universe--after that you
are out of things to use for your calculations. You don't have an infinite
time to generate them. So an appeal to the infinite while within the realm
of mathematics is not in the realm of real experience. We live in a world of
real experience.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 06:29:58 EDT