Intelligent Design

Rabbi nails it: Origin of life theory is a demolition derby

Spread the love

Just listen:

The history of scientific endeavor to discover a naturalistic origin of life reads like a laboratory version of a demolition derby. A researcher roars into the arena to propose a new theory and is summarily rammed and demolished by another theory driven by its respective theoretician who in turn is rammed and demolished by the next eager contestant. A few examples for the uninitiated reader:

Just hope your government doesn’t oblige you to pay,  unless that is the sort of entertainment that interests you.

45 Replies to “Rabbi nails it: Origin of life theory is a demolition derby

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    News

    Pardon a “fair use” cite that is a bit longer than the above, on the actual demo derby (as the objectors are just not going to click the link . . . ):

    _____________

    >>Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NYU on the popular RNA-World theory: “Picture a gorilla at an immense keyboard [that] contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also…from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances [of functional RNA molecules forming by themselves] can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne…the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth would have been a near miracle.”

    Dr. Leslie Orgel – a proponent of the RNA-World theory – on the Metabolism First theory proposed by the aforementioned Dr. Shapiro: “Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own…solutions offered by supporters of …metabolist scenarios that are dependent on ‘if pigs could fly’ chemistry are unlikely to help.” Dr. George Whitesides of Harvard University, one of the world’s greatest living chemists, made the following comment on the Metabolism First theory: “It seems to me to be astonishingly improbable.”

    Dr. Hupert Yockey, renowned information theorist on Dr. Graham Cairns-Smith’s Clay Crystal Theory: “Cairns-Smith is grossly mistaken in his hypothesis that the information density in a crystallite is at all similar to the information content in DNA.” Dr. Orgel adds: “On theoretical grounds it seems implausible.”

    Sir Fred Hoyle, renowned physicist, astronomer, and mathematician on the Primeval Organic Soup Theory: “In short there is not a shred of evidence that life began in an organic soup here on earth.” Dr. Yockey on the same subject: “The entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception.”

    Dr. Stanley Miller – whose famous 1953 experiment electrified the world of science – also does not escape unscathed. In fact, the story of the experiment that has been presented to the public is overhyped, to say the least. Dr. Gunter Wauchtershauser has characterized Miller’s approach to Origin of Life as “a blind alley.”

    Dr. Robert Shapiro: “Let us sum up. The experiment formed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. The very best Miller-Urey chemistry…does not take us very far along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched with a few amino acids [as was found in the Miller experiments] no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare.”

    Etc., Etc., Etc. >>
    _____________

    Of course the full article is well worth reading and has joined my vaults.

    Let’s hear from the proponents of a materialistic abiogenesis model for OOL, especially on how the self assembling self replicating code using FSCO/I rich metabolising automaton with gated encapsulation got started through blind chance and necessity. backed up by actual observations.

    Let’s remember, this is the root of the darwinist tree of life, and no root, nothing else beyond that. (Rhetorically convenient dividing lines notwithstanding.)

    KF

  2. 2
    cantor says:

    quoting from the article:

    The odds of rolling a six a thousand times in a row with a single die is 1 in 6 to the 1000th power, or 1 chance in 6 x 10 to the 999th power.

    6^1000 = 10^x. solving for x:

    x=10^(1000*log10(6)) = 1.42*10^778

    Why do so many people not understand exponents and logarithms?

  3. 3
    cantor says:

    typo in above, should be:

    x=10^(1000*log10(6)) = 778.1513 => 10^x = 1.42*10^778

  4. 4
    cantor says:

    ok, one more time:

    x=1000*log10(6) = 778.1513 => 10^x = 1.42*10^778

    that’s what I get for multitasking

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Why a materialistic (or even a pantheistic) origin of life scenario will NEVER fly:

    The primary reason why a materialistic (or even a pantheistic) origin of life scenario will NEVER fly is because a beyond space and time cause is now needed to explain what we are finding in life. To give a little background, ‘non-local’, beyond space and time quantum entanglement/information is now found in life on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
    http://www.scimednet.org/quant.....d-protein/

    Moreover Quantum Entanglement/Information is now shown to be its own physical entity separate from matter and energy:

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    As well, classical information, such as the digital information encoded in a computer and the digital information encoded in DNA is now found to be a subset of this non-local, beyond space and time, quantum information:

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
    In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    As to the establishment that quantum entanglement/information truly is ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time,,

    Quantum Entanglement – Bohr and Einstein ‘hidden variable’ debate – The Failure Of Local Realism/Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    Quantum theory survives latest challenge – Dec 15, 2010
    Excerpt: Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and realism must also be abandoned.
    This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment showing that entangled photons exhibit,, stronger correlations than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be allowed to communicate constantly.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.....-challenge

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt: In the years since, many “Bell tests” have been performed, but critics have identified several conditions (known as loopholes) in which the results could be considered inconclusive. For entangled photons, there have been three major loopholes; two were closed by previous experiments. The remaining problem, known as the “detection-efficiency/fair sampling loophole,” results from the fact that, until now, the detectors employed in experiments have captured an insufficiently large fraction of the photons, and the photon sources have been insufficiently efficient. The validity of such experiments is thus dependent on the assumption that the detected photons are a statistically fair sample of all the photons. That, in turn, leaves open the possibility that, if all the photon data were known, they could be described by local realism.
    The new research, conducted at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication in Austria, closes the fair-sampling loophole by using improved photon sources (spontaneous parametric down-conversion in a Sagnac configuration) and ultra-sensitive detectors provided by the Single Photonics and Quantum Information project in PML’s Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. That combination, the researchers write, was “crucial for achieving a sufficiently high collection efficiency,” resulting in a high-accuracy data set – requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    The following articles give us a small glimpse as to what it truly means for non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information to be confirmed to such a staggering degree as ’70 standard deviations’:

    Standard deviation
    Excerpt: Particle physics uses a standard of “5 sigma” for the declaration of a discovery.[3] At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....le_physics

    SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? – June 23, 2013
    Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case…
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....air-coins/

    It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism’s inability to explain this ‘transcendent quantum effect’ adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a ‘living soul’ for man that lives past the death of the temporal/material body.

    Genesis 2:7
    “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    Also of interest is that ‘information processing’ stops upon death:

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,,Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Yet quantum information is conserved:

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information) – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video
    https://vimeo.com/39982578

    So where does this conserved ‘non-local’ quantum information, that ‘cannot be destroyed’, go upon death of the physical/material body? I don’t know about others, but I find that question to be extremely pressing upon me, and is thus why I have entrusted my eternal soul to the only one upon earth I know who has ever defeated death:

    Scientific hypotheses on the origin of the body image of the Shroud – 2010
    Excerpt: for example, if we consider the density of radiation that we used to color a single square centimeter of linen, to reproduce the entire image of the Shroud with a single flash of light would require fourteen thousand lasers firing simultaneously each on a different area of linen. In other words, it would take a laser light source the size of an entire building.
    http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_22597_l3.htm

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.,,,
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Verse and Music:

    John 11:25
    Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

    Empty (Empty Cross- Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music)
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    cantor @ 2, 3, 4. hehe.

  8. 8
    cantor says:

    cantor @ 2, 3, 4. hehe.</blockquote

    I was wondering if anyone shared my unusual sense of humor.

    But seriously, how did the author ever come up with 6^1000 = 6*10^999 ???

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    I was hoping that Cantor had something interesting to contribute to the OOL debate and then I realized he’s just using the old but trusted distraction and baby/bathwater tactics. Lame.

    What is your point, Cantor?

  10. 10
    cantor says:

    What is your point, Cantor?

    Seriously? What is your point?

    If an author is going to use probabilities to make a point, then he ought not to make junior high school errors in the math. It reflects negatively on his credibility.

    There’s nothing “lame” about that.

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    Cantor:

    There’s nothing “lame” about that.

    It’s worse than lame because the validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility of the the one who argues it but on the logic of the argument.

  12. 12
    cantor says:

    but on the logic of the argument

    An argument with sloppy math is not logical.

    If you don’t care about sloppy math in probability arguments there’s nothing to be said to placate you.

  13. 13
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @cantor:

    The major point here is that according to Koonin’s logic every highly improbable event now becomes inevitable just by employing the multiverse-idea. And Koonin actually thinks that this is a valid argument.
    It doesn’t matter whether your math or the rabbi’s math is correct. The conclusion is the same.

  14. 14
    cantor says:

    It doesn’t matter whether your math or the rabbi’s math is correct.

    You can’t tell? Maybe that’s why it doesn’t matter to you.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Dr. Geim is currently reviewing Darwin’s Doubt (he’s currently up to chapter 5 in the video series)

    videos – “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer. The presenter is Paul Giem and they were recorded on the campus of Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California.
    http://www.youtube.com/playlis.....Ow3u0_mK8t

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    correction: Dr. Giem,, sorry

  17. 17
    Upright BiPed says:

    cantor,

    If you see that someone has made a factual mistake, it’s certainly okay to point it out. As far as anyone knows, the capacity to make mistakes is balanced among all people. But like objections, not all mistakes are made the same.

    Here is something you might want to consider; your calculation of 1.42 x 10^778 doesn’t fundamentally change the issue the author was pointing out. In the end, you have the mistaken calculation in one hand, and the correct calculation in the other. Both dwarf the estimated 10^80 atoms in the observable universe, which was the author’s point. That, I think, is what people consider more important.

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    Upright BiPed,

    Well said but arguing with jerks is a waste of time.

  19. 19
    cantor says:

    …arguing with jerks is a waste of time.

    Hint: that’s why few people bother arguing with you.

  20. 20
    cantor says:

    As far as anyone knows, the capacity to make mistakes is balanced among all people.

    Unless you meant that in some arcane way, as a general principle it is certainly false.

    your calculation of 1.42 x 10^778 doesn’t fundamentally change the issue the author was pointing out.

    It doesn’t change the “issue” but it changes the force of his argument.

    The probability argument the author was making was foundational to the whole article. If the author does not understand simple math, and doesn’t even know he doesn’t understand it, it makes the author look careless and/or unqualified to use a probability argument.

    That, I think, is what people consider more important.

    I wasn’t arguing what was “more” important. I was arguing that due diligence with simple math is important when writing an article in which probability calculations are foundational. Can you agree with that?

  21. 21
    Andre says:

    I agree with Cantor on this one, if you are doing math it better be correct. But lets look at at the facts, the figure posted by Cantor is evident of its zero probability and I think that is what the Rabbi tried to convey, mathematically its not probable, or improbable but impossible.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    ‘The probability argument the author was making was foundational to the whole article. If the author does not understand simple math, and doesn’t even know he doesn’t understand it, it makes the author look careless and/or unqualified to use a probability argument.’

    When the subject under discussion is precisely addressed, Cantor, and an irrational digression, because strictly irrelevant, is launched into by way of an ad hominem, it does not reflect well on the thought-processes of the person in question, namely, your good self. You should, at least, have conceded that the point was taken by you, before giving us the benefit of your footling digression and appraisal of UB’s competence to make an essentially correct(!) probability argument.

    It rather reminds me of a great aunt of mine – I won’t speak ill of her, but it’s not difficult to draw a conclusion about her character – who, on her death-bed, said to an aunt of mine, a wonderfully kind person, ‘You owe me two and thruppence.’ A cheque-book springs to mind, but, incredible as it sounds, women were not permitted to have cheque-books at that time, or, presumably, bank accounts.

  23. 23
    Upright BiPed says:

    Cantor,

    Unless you meant that in some arcane way, as a general principle it is certainly false.

    The capacity to make a mistake is shared by all people, as you previously demonstrated your #2, #3, and #4 above. As for Averick himself, he was probably multi-tasking too.

    It doesn’t change the “issue” but it changes the force of his argument.

    Cantor, let’s take this hike and make a day of it. Bring a bottle of water and a can of beans, and we’ll have lunch along the way.

    Cantor replies, “But Biped, that’ “hike” is Annapurna … it’s a good two to three weeks of treacherous terrain … and probably another two weeks of acclimation”.

    Okay, bring two cans.

    I was arguing that due diligence with simple math is important when writing an article in which probability calculations are foundational. Can you agree with that

    I have already agreed with that, without reservation. I also pointed out that your objection doesn’t alter the author’s point. As for being “foundational”, 1.42*10^778 remains unfathomably larger than 10^80. Your acknowledgement of this fact isn’t necessary, but would have added some needed balance to your objection. If your only point is that care should be taken not to make mistakes, then you are arguing over uncontested territory.

    😐

  24. 24
    cantor says:

    The capacity to make a mistake is shared by all people

    I can certainly agree with that re-worded version of your original statement.

    I also pointed out that your objection doesn’t alter the author’s point.

    I never said it “altered” his point. You are arguing over uncontested territory.

  25. 25
    cantor says:

    an irrational digression,

    Guilty as charged. The method I used to convert 6^1000 to a mantissa and an exponent of 10 involves irrational numbers. If you have a better way, please post it.

    is launched into by way of an ad hominem

    What ad hominem are you referring to?

    You should, at least, have conceded that the point was taken by you, before giving us the benefit of your footling digression and appraisal of UB’s competence to make an essentially correct(!) probability argument

    Please translate the above into English.

  26. 26
    Upright BiPed says:

    Good, we are in agreement, People should try not to make mistakes, even though they all will; and your pointing out of the author’s calculation does nothing to alter his point.

  27. 27
    cantor says:

    your pointing out of the author’s calculation does nothing to alter his point.

    But it does alter how many people — especially those who disagree on ideological grounds — will perceive his point, and open him to criticism from said people which could easily be avoided were he to have the wisdom to have his paper vetted in those areas where he is not fully competent.

  28. 28
    Upright BiPed says:

    Yet again, we remain in agreement. For the reasons you point out, people should strive to not make mistakes. And for the reasons I point out, your objection does nothing to alter the author’s point.

  29. 29
    cantor says:

    The method I used to convert 6^1000 to a mantissa and an exponent of 10 involves irrational numbers. If you have a better way, please post it.

    I’ll save you the trouble.

    If you have access to a computer that can do arithmetic on rational numbers a thousand digits in length, here’s a simple 2-step trial-and-error method for doing the calculation without using irrational numbers:

    1) Compute (6^1000)/(10^N), varying N until the resulting fraction has the same number of digits in the numerator as in the denominator, and the numerator is greater than the denominator. You will eventually find that N=778, like so:

    891073969584967200937203740142[484 digits]082813054936469179817529442304

    divided by

    629018434530970049631546533532[484 digits]387723640538752079010009765625

    2) 778 is now your desired power of 10, and 891/629 is your (rational) mantissa

    Suit yourself, but I prefer the irrational method.

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N:

    6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way?

    lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125

    = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778

    Taking antilogs:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778

    = 1.41661 * 10^778.

    Hope that helps. (It can be expanded to fractional numbers by in effect converting these into sci notation, or if you recall, the old Bar-Z plus .abcd . . . in logged form.)

    KF

    PS: Yes, people often do pounce on minor errors in arithmetic etc to dismiss what they are inclined to dismiss, ignoring the concept of materiality.

    PPS: The real OOL challenge is actually not primarily probabilistic, but a sampling/search resources vs space of possibilities challenge. FSCO/I sharply constrains possible configs, in a context where the range of raw possibilities is vast [starting of order 10^150 – 10^300], swamping search resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos. It is not possible to search more than a vanishingly small fraction of the config space so if the search is blind, we have no good reason to expect to find the sort of very special clusters we see in the world of life. Unless the materialists can show empirically that his is not the case, we have no reason to take their OOL scenarios seriously. Hence, the most significant single thing in the good Rabbi’s article, the cluster of clips form the practitioners above, which shows that they are nowhere near a serious answer to the challenge.

  31. 31
    cantor says:

    6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way?

    lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125

    = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778

    Taking antilogs:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778

    = 1.41661 * 10^778.

    Hope that helps.

    Not really. It’s already been posted. See posts 2, 3, and 4

  32. 32
    cantor says:

    KF wrote at post 30:

    6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way?

    lg [6^1,000] = 1,0000 * lg 6 = 778.15125

    = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778

    Taking antilogs:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] + antilog 778

    = 1.41661 * 10^778.

    There’s a serious typo in the above. Can you find it?

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    C:

    1 –> I see you spotted a case with four not three 0’s. Ouch.

    2 –> I had hoped not to have to be more explicit about “6^1000 = 10^x” which is looking for a log value x. I think you were maybe fishing for 6^1000 = p * 10^q (with p between 1 and 9.999 . . . ], and solving for p and q. Which is where what I did I think — per experience — helps people see a bit more clearly by explicitly going through logs:

    1000 lg 6 = q + lg p, q being the whole part and lg p the fractional.

    KF

  34. 34
    cantor says:

    I see you spotted a case with four not three 0?s. Ouch.

    There’s another one hiding in plain sight.

  35. 35
    Querius says:

    Reminds me of something. 🙂

    Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core?

    A: 15 million degrees.

    Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin?

    A: It doesn’t matter.

  36. 36
    cantor says:

    I think a better analogy would be:

    Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core?

    A: 15 million degrees.

    Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin?

    A: What's a "Kelvin" ?

  37. 37
    cantor says:

    I think a better analogy would be:
    .

    Q: What is the temperature of the sun at its core?

    A: 15 million degrees.

    Q: Is that in degrees Centigrade or degrees Kelvin?

    A: What’s a “Kelvin” ?

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    Heh. A bit overstated, IMHO, but then so are most Darwinist claims.

    But it does alter how many people — especially those who disagree on ideological grounds — will perceive his point, and open him to criticism from said people which could easily be avoided were he to have the wisdom to have his paper vetted in those areas where he is not fully competent.

    “Said” people or “aforementioned” people? 😉

    Yes, I agree. The effort should have been made, and the correction gracefully accepted.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    C: At this point, pardon, but your exchange looks a tad serially tangential relative to the material issue. KF

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Let me simply post:

    6^1,000 –> A * 10^B, a maybe easy way?

    lg [6^1,000] = 1,000 * lg 6 = 778.15125

    = 778 + 0.15125 = 0.15125 + 778

    Taking antilogs:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] * antilog 778

    = 1.41661 * 10^778.

    Hope that helps. (It can be expanded to fractional numbers by in effect converting these into sci notation, or if you recall, the old Bar-Z plus .abcd . . . in logged form.)

    The material issue is that the config space implied is well beyond the blind search capacity of the observed cosmos.

    KF

  41. 41
    cantor says:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125] * antilog 778
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~

    I see you found and fixed the typo (replaced + with *).

    For completeness, here it is with the missing step included:

    6^1,000 = antilog[0.15125 + 778] = antilog[0.15125] * antilog[778]

  42. 42
    cantor says:

    “Said” people or “aforementioned” people?

    “said” and “aforementioned” are synonyms in this context, so it’s not clear what you meant.

    Anyway, those few of us who care about math cringe when we see a perfectly good argument needlessly tainted, opening the door to ridicule by ideologues. There’s no reason or excuse for it.

  43. 43
    Mung says:

    In spite of all that has come before, I am still no better at exponents and logarithms.

    When a mathematical function cannot be approximated with a clever expression, such as the Lanczos formula introduced in Section 2.4.1, one must resort to computing that function using the integral, the recurrence formula, or the series expansion. All these algorithms have one central feature in common: the repetition of the same computation until some convergence criterion is met. Such repetitive computation is called iteration.

    Object-Oriented Implementation of Numerical Methods

    Am I even in the ballpark? Probably not, lol.

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    Yes, Cantor. It’s like a spelling error on an otherwise impressive resume’.

    See also http://grammarist.com/usage/said/.

  45. 45
    cantor says:

    It’s like a spelling error on an otherwise impressive resume.

    Not even close.

Leave a Reply