@Husthewise Hi Husthewise, I know its a counterintuitive result, but you can actually rigorously prove that in a finite, closed system, if the entire system is at maximum entropy there MUST be subsystems which are not at maximum entropy. If you are seriously interested in understanding why, check out the book "Kolmogorov Complexity" by Li and Vitanyi they have a rigorous proof.
95% of these people (including me) don't understand 75% of your words because they're too complex. Next time you make a video, it'll help if you use smaller words haha.
Interesting points you bring up, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Meaning, Kolmogorov complexity and information entropy (some measure of randomness) is not the same as thermodynamic entropy.
I believe you know all about Kolmogorov complexity. And I've read a bit of Chaitin and am continuing to improve my knowledge of it.
But the point is that Information Entropy != Thermodynamic Entropy. They're nice to analogize, but that is it. This is my belief. Do you have proof to the contrary? :)
So I suppose your definition of non random is "homogeneous". But for example, a bunch of particles in their lowest energy state would be homogeneous and HIGH ENTROPY. Where as biological structures are very much heterogenous in their structure and surely of LOW ENTROPY. (We burn real good). I think the modeling of HIGH ENTROPY as a Heterogeneous array is not valid. In fact, it seems quite backwards. In other words. I am charging you with an "equivocation" of the meaning of the word ORDERED.
Hi hadtohappen, this video uses the word random in the sense of having a high kolmogorov complexity. If you know what that means, you'll know it addresses your concerns, if not, let me know and I'll try to explain further.
An array of all ones is less complex than an array of ones and zeros. I don't see anything in kolmogorv complexity that contradicts this straightforward assessment.
Ha hadtohappen, its ok if you don't know anything about komogorov complexity dude, it took me about 5 years to master it myself. But going around pretending you know stuff when you don't is a terrible trap, because you lose opportunities to learn.
people believe in god rather then not with all your scientific knowledge. Its to bad your on the negative. Dont hate on GOD because of political religion. god is FELT not KNOWN, we dont feel what we are told. we feel what we believe or desire. physics cannot explain consciousness or spirituality witch obviously exists.
I know entropy to be as a measure of (microstates) the number of ways a configuration (macrostate) can occur. This is the definition given by statistical mechanics. If you think about it you can define order such that entropy by this definition can select states of higher order, if they are more probable.
This whole debate is about the second law of thermodynamics and how it applies to the universe. But there is no equivalent physical law for the Shannon Entropy.
If you believe you can prove you are right, please go ahead, explaining each step as you proceed. Feel free to use as much mathematics as you require - I should cope. I give you my word that if there is anything I don't understand, I shall stop you and ask for clarification or assistance.
Hi bushfingers, entropy doesn't ALWAYS increase. consider a closed container which only has 2 molecules of air in it, bounding around. Because of conservation of momentum, these molecules will bounce around forever. The system has the least entropy when both of the molecule collide and bounce off of each other. The system has the least amount of entropy when the molecules are far away from each other. To say that entropy always increases is to say that it is impossible for the (cont)
(cont, to bushfingers) molecules ever to collide with each other--which of course isn't true. Entropy doesn't always increase, its just far more probable than entropy is decreasing than that it is increasing.
Thanks for the reply. I still believe you are wrong in this case and I will attempt to prove it. I will get back to you in a day or so.
While we are having this debate, I would also like to discuss your video which shows that Newtonian Mechanics is not deterministic. I'd like to have a go at showing that it is.
PS I find your videos very interesting and quite often pretty challenging.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a classical theory of macroscopic systems. It does not apply to microscopic systems. The second law of thermodynamics specifically does not allow for an INCREASE in the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system. So we may grant that your model could represent a microscopic system, but then it has no bearing on the universe (which I believe is a macroscopic system).
Why your model cannot be macroscopic. Suppose you define a function of you matrix which gives the entropy of the system. Now suppose you have a randomly generated matrix with the lowest possible entropy at t. Your next randomly generated matrix (say at t+dt) has a very high probability of having a lower entropy. This is in direct contradiction to 2nd law. In fact, your function values will be all over the place never settling to an equilibrium value: again a contradiction of 2nd law.
Even with the example you gave of 2 molecules of an ideal gas in a CLOSED CONTAINER. As far as I know, the universe is not enclosed by an impervious barrier. So even in our microscopic system, after the collision, the particles will go on their merry way and never the twain shall meet.
Also, we have a universe which is expanding (in all directions and everywhere), thus lowering the average temperature density, and thus increasing entropy. Your model does not reflect this.
Hi bushfingers, I'll counter this, but first, you'll have to show me you understand what entropy is :-) Say there is a roulette wheel with the letters A through N arranged in a circle on the rim. There is a pointer which points at one of the letters. You spin the wheel, eventually it slows down and the pointer points at a letter. What is the entropy of the distribution of letters you'll get?
Sorry I have taken so long to respond to this comment, but to be honest, I was tempted not to respond at all. Why? Because I don't like the way you are trying to establish a particular type of relationship at the outset i.e. me having to seek your approval :-)
I could ask the same question. Do you know what entropy is? You seem to be confusing the Shannon entropy of information theory with the thermodynamic entropy of macroscopic systems.
So you're resting your rebuttle on "who knows, maybe"? If you want to believe in things that no one has ever seen and that cannot be proven, you might as well be a theist. Secondly, there's so much bullshit rhetoric in there, since Random is just an abstract which represents an idea and not any existing actuality. There is no such thing as random..and maybe that in itself is the reason for order. *shrugs*
"The only things we know about that have attributes A,B,C are _____"
Whenever you hear this come out of an evangelical's mouth, you are gauranteed that the very next thing they are going to say is total bullshit. Watch the Kalam video again by veritas48. He starts referring to "disembodied minds" like they are regular objects like trees! And he even starts talking about their ATTRIBUTES!!! It's not just illogical but its bordering on superstition.
Very true otonanoC. The irony is that "disembodies minds" is a mistake that the Bible (as a Hebraic work) never made. It was a greek, and post biblical, idea that minds could live platonically without their bodies..
I think we don't know enough about what "the universe" is. Did the universe exist before the big bang? Does it make sense to talk about a "before" in relation to the big bang?
One of the good contestants to the big bang cosmology is plasma cosmology, i find it much more believable then the big bang. And i think they will coexist for along time.
Ha! good question Kaaru, the first hardest was "The Logical Basis of Metaphysics" by Michael Dummett. It took me 15 years to read that one--mostly because first I had to read everything which Davidson ever wrote, which means that first I had to read everything that Quine ever wrote....
Jeez. I swear I learn more from your videos than all the years I went to college. I feel like the University of California owes me a refund for my entire education.
I think you are talking of patterns and lack of them, not randomness. Randomness doesn't exist. I disagree on basics, there is no order in the universe. What is order? Look up plasma universe, or electrical universe. But still as always i love your vids, although i disagree with some.
Hi bezvezeceda, very recently, a new definition of randomness has emerged which I think would quell your quite understandable qualms. It was proposed independently by Kolmogorov, Chaiten, and Solomonov. It goes liek this: a string is defined to be "uncompressable" if there is no computer program which prints out the string, and is shorter than the string itself. Li & Vitanyi's book goes through the whole thing and it is a mind-blower.
I was looking on it from a bit more from logical perspective on the construction or the random string itself. Is it possible to write algorithm which keeps increasing size of the string by adding new members and then tests it with all known compressing methods, effectively continually enlarging the string. When the size of the string gets above the size of alg. then...
... there is smaller choice of ways to go in deciding what is next sing to be in new member unit of the string. This is limited by compression methods which exclude possibility of some methods (case of CompressAlg.ProofOfSmallerString = true) this limit makes the group smaller making it possible to represented it with smaller group (case of EntireAlg.POSS = true). Above some size it is impossible for it to be uncompressable.
Hi bezvezeceda, if I understood you correctly when you say "above some size it is impossible for it to be uncompressable", well, there's an easy way to see that all strings of length n can't be compressed even by one bit--because there's twice as many strings of length n as there are of length n-1. There's just not enough smaller strings to represent all of the possible larger strings.
String of length 262144 bytes can hold all possible variations for length of n=4.(looking them as totally separated) Above that size the repeat is inevitable. Also since the string continually avoids compression alg, there are no 16 as many n as n-1 the moment when the possibilities drop below 8 you saved a bit :).
Lets say we got over the size of our alg and we are deciding next 4 bytes. Initial possibilities are 256,256,256,256 (4.294.967.296 needed 32 bits), but we have to avoid compression algs so (lets say) our possibilities are 215,215,215,215 (2.136.750.625 needed 31 bits),... try to scale it to more than 4 bytes.
Ok, I still don't understand....can you state exactly what your algorithm does? what are the inputs, what are the outputs. and what exactly are the claims you are making? Are you claiming that you can compress all binary strings?
My alg searches for all uncompressable strings. It tests string with all known compress algs. So in previous example it found what next byte cant be and those were this 41 characters (we assumed that for all 4 bytes). It found the limits of possible next bytes. After that we took this 4 bytes and found the number of variations for which we found we need 31 bits.
If we want to make the program which produces uncompressable string, at the point when the string gets above the size of the creating program it isn't uncompressable any more since the creator is the proof of smaller string.
But there is an an infinite number of known compression algorithms. E.g. consider a compression algorithm which will compress bits of length n to bits of length (n-1). You can simply make a look-up table which maps some choosen subset of the 2^n strings of length n onto the 2^(n-1) strings of length (n-1).
It was all hypothetical i just tried to show that above some point nothing is uncompressable. And i think that randomness represents the process of string construction. And i think that universal randomness doesn't exist there can be randomness in specific scope if the sources of construction are from different scope. I recommend you to check plasma cosmology.
"A string s is compressible by a number c if it has a description whose length does not exceed |s| − c. This is equivalent to saying K(s) ≤ |s| − c.". I found this on wiki is it correct?
I'm sorry, you are right, strange ... it seams that for any variation on the string of some length there are at least 50% of variations that cannot be compressed, again sorry. :)
There is always one which cannot be compressed, although you can compress 99.999999 of all strings you can imagine and some very effectively but one is always elusive.
Randomness must contain nonrandom parts. I find this kinda funny. And the application of this to the entropy in the universe is pretty cool. Newtonian nondeterminism, voodoo deaths and now random subnonrandomness, where do you get all that stuff from?
Hi koenichfuerst :-) when I was in grad school, I shared an office complex with an amazing guy. I knew what books I should be reading just by seeing what he had found that week in the library.....one of those book was Li & Vitanyi's. Five years of painful, humiliating, at times excruciatingly frustrating reading later and I finally understood the damn thing :-)
Btw, randy, space is considered to be infinite by most cosmologists nowadays. Whether or not the topology of time (if we consider all past intervals) is also infinite is currently up in the air.
As far as I've conceptualized I'm come the the conclusion that there is SOMETHING infinite. Even if the universe is finite and there is a god. Either "god" is infinite or it was created by something created by something blah blah blah. This is not testable though. Just a conceptualization of things. 2 cents... 2 cents. When it comes to there being order or not thought it depends on what you consider to be order, of course.
Hi savagemike, if you hold your thumb and forefinger 1 inch apart, there are an infinity number of positions between them :-) Also, most atheists have no trouble postulating things like an infinite number of integers or sets.
Great vid Randy, they (Moreland and Co.) always struck me as snake oil salespeople as well. One thing that always surprises me is how, seemingly intelligent people feel comforted by the arguments and stop short of thinking them through. They fall apart so quickly under any level of serious scrutiny.
Thanks oldiousnei. And its not like Moreland and Craig haven't heard all of these refutations ..... truly it is mysterious as to why they believe this stuffl.
Why do you think it was Ad Hominem, ambassador1022? If an atheist were going around saying that you could prove that God _doesn't_ exists, and kept saying that after every single one of there arguments were shown to be wrong, I would not hesitate to call them intellectually dishonest.
"If an atheist were going around saying that you could prove that God _doesn't_ exists,"
Yes but Randy there is a difference here. They are attacking a position/worldview while you are attacking them personally. I can see how you can construe an implicit insult in the former but the latter is perfectly explicit and simply not necessary. Snake Oil salesman? Intellectual faith healers? That is simply inappropriate.
??? he blocked you? Wow. You are a strong atheist, but you arn't rude; I think I've said much ruder things in my vids than I've ever heard you say. Anyways, with regards to #2, glad I could help :-) And with regards to #5, yeah, I think most atheists on YouTube just want to preserve our secular society from turing into a mullah-acracy.
As I told rozeboosje, essentially, he made some fallacious arguments against g0at, I said something like "you're intelligent, I think you can figure it out. I'll give you a day to see what logical fallacies you used before I expose them" and the next day, I was blocked. It might have been out of line by some weird standard, but I think it was OK.
A mullah-acracy would be unbearable, but right now it seems more likely north america will become a christocracy
I would also say Randy that I have heard this response before and Craig in particular has spoken on it in refutation. Also, this one part of the Kalam is not the centerpiece of the argument and you know that. Giving this, your response in no way refutes the Kalam because Premise 2 has much more than the entropy discussion attached to it...and thats assuming this somehow refutes P2 to begin with.
I will see if I can upload it actually. I'm thinking he talked about a VERY similar refutation in a semester long class he taught at Talbot on the Kalam argument itself... in which I was able to snag a complete copy of from a friend on campus.
BTW, this was not meant as a refutation of P2---P2 I agree with. This is an argument against an argument for P2 given by Craig (as told by Veritas48). This was meant, actually, (perhaps misguidedly) as a show of good faith--that I was willing to say that Craig's logic is bad even when it supports a position I actually agree with. The argument also has independent value by showing how we don't need to postulate God in order to account for the non-random character of the visible universe.
*sigh* you're right, I should do more of that, but I'm trying :-) Did you see my vid on the diagonal argument? Also, I just did two vids on the Gospel of Mark which weren't responses to anybody......
... soooo how is what he is saying in his videos NOT what he believes? How is it that questioning the ideas of others is NOT a valid way of conveying your own? Dialectic is still cool imo :P
Well you only hear what the other guy allows you to hear. Randy usually doesn't go off on a tangent and explain anything unrelated to the subject at hand. He usually sticks right on the topic the other guy made up. So some of the things he says leaves his position somewhat vague.
Hmm, well I respect your point of view although I don't detect a vagueness in his positions. Perhaps you should ask him about what you would like to know.
Hi cda6590, yeah, YouTube only allow us 10 minutes per vid, so there's not a lot of time for leasurly tangents :-) But if there's anything in particular you'd like to talk about, I'd be happy to do a vid on it. e.g. valyok asked me about what I thought about Dr. Craigs 'refutation" of hume, and I did 3 or 4 vids on it...
Well you seem to be very sympathetic to the Christian cause. You've even said you enjoy reading the Bible. So the most obvious question to ask is why exactly are you an atheist? If you can answer in 500 characters or less, that will be satisfiable enough!
Your "random array of bits" graph is a very, very poor example of randomness. Allthough the digits in your graph are randomly generated, immense order is evident.
a. Notice that yor have exactly 11 lines and 11 columns of digits. Why? How is this random? Why aren't the numbers just scattered all over the screen in a "true" random fashion, as childrens buildings blocks may be scattered all over the floor of a room.
@revo1974 The claim is that any sufficiently large object will have parts which are less random than the whole object. If that claim is true, them the universe, being very large, must have large parts which are nonrandom.
There will parts more random than the whole object as well.
The Universe exhibits a very high degree of order, structure, harmony and regularity. These attributes are better explained by design than chance. It all boils down to what you favor more, design or a multiverse. In my opinion design is the more simple and elegant answer. With this said anyone who claims to know anything about the designer(s) is full of it.
...b. Why are you using only two digits, 0's and 1's? Why digits at all? Why not just have all sorts of different characters, shapes, designs and scibble?
That graphh is an extremely poor example of what true randomness, disorder and chaos is.
WTF is a disorderly universe anyhow? Is it even a coherent concept?
Forkroute 5 months ago
@Husthewise Hi Husthewise, I know its a counterintuitive result, but you can actually rigorously prove that in a finite, closed system, if the entire system is at maximum entropy there MUST be subsystems which are not at maximum entropy. If you are seriously interested in understanding why, check out the book "Kolmogorov Complexity" by Li and Vitanyi they have a rigorous proof.
randyhelzerman 10 months ago
95% of these people (including me) don't understand 75% of your words because they're too complex. Next time you make a video, it'll help if you use smaller words haha.
dabestlyricist 10 months ago
Is there indeed order in the universe? I would say the universe seems more disordered than ordered, but we might be defining 'ordered' diferently.
C0C0nutFace 2 years ago
At what point do we consider ourselves a result of order in the universe? just playing devils advocate here...
Hawkace009 2 years ago
Interesting points you bring up, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Meaning, Kolmogorov complexity and information entropy (some measure of randomness) is not the same as thermodynamic entropy.
I believe you know all about Kolmogorov complexity. And I've read a bit of Chaitin and am continuing to improve my knowledge of it.
But the point is that Information Entropy != Thermodynamic Entropy. They're nice to analogize, but that is it. This is my belief. Do you have proof to the contrary? :)
Shredcheddar 2 years ago
So I suppose your definition of non random is "homogeneous". But for example, a bunch of particles in their lowest energy state would be homogeneous and HIGH ENTROPY. Where as biological structures are very much heterogenous in their structure and surely of LOW ENTROPY. (We burn real good). I think the modeling of HIGH ENTROPY as a Heterogeneous array is not valid. In fact, it seems quite backwards. In other words. I am charging you with an "equivocation" of the meaning of the word ORDERED.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Hi hadtohappen, this video uses the word random in the sense of having a high kolmogorov complexity. If you know what that means, you'll know it addresses your concerns, if not, let me know and I'll try to explain further.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
An array of all ones is less complex than an array of ones and zeros. I don't see anything in kolmogorv complexity that contradicts this straightforward assessment.
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Ha hadtohappen, its ok if you don't know anything about komogorov complexity dude, it took me about 5 years to master it myself. But going around pretending you know stuff when you don't is a terrible trap, because you lose opportunities to learn.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
people believe in god rather then not with all your scientific knowledge. Its to bad your on the negative. Dont hate on GOD because of political religion. god is FELT not KNOWN, we dont feel what we are told. we feel what we believe or desire. physics cannot explain consciousness or spirituality witch obviously exists.
jaalul 2 years ago
I know entropy to be as a measure of (microstates) the number of ways a configuration (macrostate) can occur. This is the definition given by statistical mechanics. If you think about it you can define order such that entropy by this definition can select states of higher order, if they are more probable.
Newton1692 3 years ago
This whole debate is about the second law of thermodynamics and how it applies to the universe. But there is no equivalent physical law for the Shannon Entropy.
If you believe you can prove you are right, please go ahead, explaining each step as you proceed. Feel free to use as much mathematics as you require - I should cope. I give you my word that if there is anything I don't understand, I shall stop you and ask for clarification or assistance.
If you choose not to, I understand - TIME!!
bushfingers 3 years ago
OOPS. Your refutation is incorrect. You have made the horrible mistake of modelling a non-random process with a random one.
The point is that entropy is NOT A RANDOM PROCESS, but proceeds in a given direction (it always increases).
It is possible that your random array comes up as all ones, and therefore according to your model, the entropy would not have increased.
What should make you feel uneasy, is that your randomly generated array in NOT a function of your original array.
bushfingers 3 years ago
Hi bushfingers, entropy doesn't ALWAYS increase. consider a closed container which only has 2 molecules of air in it, bounding around. Because of conservation of momentum, these molecules will bounce around forever. The system has the least entropy when both of the molecule collide and bounce off of each other. The system has the least amount of entropy when the molecules are far away from each other. To say that entropy always increases is to say that it is impossible for the (cont)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
(cont, to bushfingers) molecules ever to collide with each other--which of course isn't true. Entropy doesn't always increase, its just far more probable than entropy is decreasing than that it is increasing.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I still believe you are wrong in this case and I will attempt to prove it. I will get back to you in a day or so.
While we are having this debate, I would also like to discuss your video which shows that Newtonian Mechanics is not deterministic. I'd like to have a go at showing that it is.
PS I find your videos very interesting and quite often pretty challenging.
bushfingers 3 years ago
thanks! good luck in your quest.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Well, here goes.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a classical theory of macroscopic systems. It does not apply to microscopic systems. The second law of thermodynamics specifically does not allow for an INCREASE in the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system. So we may grant that your model could represent a microscopic system, but then it has no bearing on the universe (which I believe is a macroscopic system).
bushfingers 3 years ago
(Continued)
Why your model cannot be macroscopic. Suppose you define a function of you matrix which gives the entropy of the system. Now suppose you have a randomly generated matrix with the lowest possible entropy at t. Your next randomly generated matrix (say at t+dt) has a very high probability of having a lower entropy. This is in direct contradiction to 2nd law. In fact, your function values will be all over the place never settling to an equilibrium value: again a contradiction of 2nd law.
bushfingers 3 years ago
(Continued)
Even with the example you gave of 2 molecules of an ideal gas in a CLOSED CONTAINER. As far as I know, the universe is not enclosed by an impervious barrier. So even in our microscopic system, after the collision, the particles will go on their merry way and never the twain shall meet.
Also, we have a universe which is expanding (in all directions and everywhere), thus lowering the average temperature density, and thus increasing entropy. Your model does not reflect this.
bushfingers 3 years ago
Hi bushfingers, I'll counter this, but first, you'll have to show me you understand what entropy is :-) Say there is a roulette wheel with the letters A through N arranged in a circle on the rim. There is a pointer which points at one of the letters. You spin the wheel, eventually it slows down and the pointer points at a letter. What is the entropy of the distribution of letters you'll get?
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Sorry I have taken so long to respond to this comment, but to be honest, I was tempted not to respond at all. Why? Because I don't like the way you are trying to establish a particular type of relationship at the outset i.e. me having to seek your approval :-)
I could ask the same question. Do you know what entropy is? You seem to be confusing the Shannon entropy of information theory with the thermodynamic entropy of macroscopic systems.
bushfingers 3 years ago
So you're resting your rebuttle on "who knows, maybe"? If you want to believe in things that no one has ever seen and that cannot be proven, you might as well be a theist. Secondly, there's so much bullshit rhetoric in there, since Random is just an abstract which represents an idea and not any existing actuality. There is no such thing as random..and maybe that in itself is the reason for order. *shrugs*
Final137 4 years ago
**They are snake oil salesman**
Excellent. I was thinking about making a whole video on this. I'll see if I can fit this into a single comment here, coming up next...
otonanoC 4 years ago
"The only things we know about that have attributes A,B,C are _____"
Whenever you hear this come out of an evangelical's mouth, you are gauranteed that the very next thing they are going to say is total bullshit. Watch the Kalam video again by veritas48. He starts referring to "disembodied minds" like they are regular objects like trees! And he even starts talking about their ATTRIBUTES!!! It's not just illogical but its bordering on superstition.
otonanoC 4 years ago
Very true otonanoC. The irony is that "disembodies minds" is a mistake that the Bible (as a Hebraic work) never made. It was a greek, and post biblical, idea that minds could live platonically without their bodies..
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I think we don't know enough about what "the universe" is. Did the universe exist before the big bang? Does it make sense to talk about a "before" in relation to the big bang?
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
One of the good contestants to the big bang cosmology is plasma cosmology, i find it much more believable then the big bang. And i think they will coexist for along time.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Thanks for enlightening this layperson. Code on! and kudos.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Actually, that is a 11x11 array of bits my friend.
firstcor1313 4 years ago
!!!!!! bwahahaha Ok, so I can't count :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
You write protocols for a living, its funny how quickly my mind can see errors with bit counting:)
firstcor1313 4 years ago
Man, I made a typo. "You" == "I" We both need coffee I guess
firstcor1313 4 years ago
I guess so!! Glad you're eyes are an board to keep me honest here :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
The second hardest book? What was the first hardest?
Kaaru 4 years ago
Ha! good question Kaaru, the first hardest was "The Logical Basis of Metaphysics" by Michael Dummett. It took me 15 years to read that one--mostly because first I had to read everything which Davidson ever wrote, which means that first I had to read everything that Quine ever wrote....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Glad to hear you stopped that regress at some point so you could actually read the Dummett book. :-)
Kaaru 4 years ago
Ha! Yeah, I know, by simple induction, we should be able to understand nothing at all :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Jeez. I swear I learn more from your videos than all the years I went to college. I feel like the University of California owes me a refund for my entire education.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
Ha! ThanksBlindWatchmaker.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I think you are talking of patterns and lack of them, not randomness. Randomness doesn't exist. I disagree on basics, there is no order in the universe. What is order? Look up plasma universe, or electrical universe. But still as always i love your vids, although i disagree with some.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Hi bezvezeceda, very recently, a new definition of randomness has emerged which I think would quell your quite understandable qualms. It was proposed independently by Kolmogorov, Chaiten, and Solomonov. It goes liek this: a string is defined to be "uncompressable" if there is no computer program which prints out the string, and is shorter than the string itself. Li & Vitanyi's book goes through the whole thing and it is a mind-blower.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I was looking on it from a bit more from logical perspective on the construction or the random string itself. Is it possible to write algorithm which keeps increasing size of the string by adding new members and then tests it with all known compressing methods, effectively continually enlarging the string. When the size of the string gets above the size of alg. then...
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
... there is smaller choice of ways to go in deciding what is next sing to be in new member unit of the string. This is limited by compression methods which exclude possibility of some methods (case of CompressAlg.ProofOfSmallerString = true) this limit makes the group smaller making it possible to represented it with smaller group (case of EntireAlg.POSS = true). Above some size it is impossible for it to be uncompressable.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
I hope that i said what i meant.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Hi bezvezeceda, if I understood you correctly when you say "above some size it is impossible for it to be uncompressable", well, there's an easy way to see that all strings of length n can't be compressed even by one bit--because there's twice as many strings of length n as there are of length n-1. There's just not enough smaller strings to represent all of the possible larger strings.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
String of length 262144 bytes can hold all possible variations for length of n=4.(looking them as totally separated) Above that size the repeat is inevitable. Also since the string continually avoids compression alg, there are no 16 as many n as n-1 the moment when the possibilities drop below 8 you saved a bit :).
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Hi bezvezeceda, I guess I don't understand what you are trying to show, can you restate it? :-) (sorry for being so dense!)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Lets say we got over the size of our alg and we are deciding next 4 bytes. Initial possibilities are 256,256,256,256 (4.294.967.296 needed 32 bits), but we have to avoid compression algs so (lets say) our possibilities are 215,215,215,215 (2.136.750.625 needed 31 bits),... try to scale it to more than 4 bytes.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
We assumed that 41 characters are catched by compress algs.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Ok, I still don't understand....can you state exactly what your algorithm does? what are the inputs, what are the outputs. and what exactly are the claims you are making? Are you claiming that you can compress all binary strings?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
My alg searches for all uncompressable strings. It tests string with all known compress algs. So in previous example it found what next byte cant be and those were this 41 characters (we assumed that for all 4 bytes). It found the limits of possible next bytes. After that we took this 4 bytes and found the number of variations for which we found we need 31 bits.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
If we want to make the program which produces uncompressable string, at the point when the string gets above the size of the creating program it isn't uncompressable any more since the creator is the proof of smaller string.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
But there is an an infinite number of known compression algorithms. E.g. consider a compression algorithm which will compress bits of length n to bits of length (n-1). You can simply make a look-up table which maps some choosen subset of the 2^n strings of length n onto the 2^(n-1) strings of length (n-1).
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
It was all hypothetical i just tried to show that above some point nothing is uncompressable. And i think that randomness represents the process of string construction. And i think that universal randomness doesn't exist there can be randomness in specific scope if the sources of construction are from different scope. I recommend you to check plasma cosmology.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
"A string s is compressible by a number c if it has a description whose length does not exceed |s| − c. This is equivalent to saying K(s) ≤ |s| − c.". I found this on wiki is it correct?
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
yes. K(s) is the length of the shortest self-delimiting computer program which prints out s.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I'm sorry, you are right, strange ... it seams that for any variation on the string of some length there are at least 50% of variations that cannot be compressed, again sorry. :)
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
:-) don't be sorry, bezvezeceda! this is exactly the kind of stuff which I enjoy talking about! :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
There is always one which cannot be compressed, although you can compress 99.999999 of all strings you can imagine and some very effectively but one is always elusive.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
And therefore the nature of the universe must be digital Lol.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Randomness must contain nonrandom parts. I find this kinda funny. And the application of this to the entropy in the universe is pretty cool. Newtonian nondeterminism, voodoo deaths and now random subnonrandomness, where do you get all that stuff from?
koenichfuerst 4 years ago
Hi koenichfuerst :-) when I was in grad school, I shared an office complex with an amazing guy. I knew what books I should be reading just by seeing what he had found that week in the library.....one of those book was Li & Vitanyi's. Five years of painful, humiliating, at times excruciatingly frustrating reading later and I finally understood the damn thing :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Heh. Now that I think of it, I guess I am that guy to many others.
koenichfuerst 4 years ago
Btw, randy, space is considered to be infinite by most cosmologists nowadays. Whether or not the topology of time (if we consider all past intervals) is also infinite is currently up in the air.
Rayndeon 4 years ago
Hmmm... thanks for the heads-up Rayndeon....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
As far as I've conceptualized I'm come the the conclusion that there is SOMETHING infinite. Even if the universe is finite and there is a god. Either "god" is infinite or it was created by something created by something blah blah blah. This is not testable though. Just a conceptualization of things. 2 cents... 2 cents. When it comes to there being order or not thought it depends on what you consider to be order, of course.
savagemike90 4 years ago
Hi savagemike, if you hold your thumb and forefinger 1 inch apart, there are an infinity number of positions between them :-) Also, most atheists have no trouble postulating things like an infinite number of integers or sets.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I love Zeno.
savagemike90 4 years ago
I think I disagree with your definition of "random."
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
Hi CousinoMacul, the definition preferred by Li and Vitanyi is that of Kolmogorov-Martin-Loef.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
BTW dude, you'd love their book. I think it would take you significantly less time than it too me to read it too :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Great vid Randy, they (Moreland and Co.) always struck me as snake oil salespeople as well. One thing that always surprises me is how, seemingly intelligent people feel comforted by the arguments and stop short of thinking them through. They fall apart so quickly under any level of serious scrutiny.
oldiousnei 4 years ago
Thanks oldiousnei. And its not like Moreland and Craig haven't heard all of these refutations ..... truly it is mysterious as to why they believe this stuffl.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Interesting video. I will be making a response soon.
On a side note, I think your Ad Hominem against Moreland and Craig, which poisoned the well for future discussion, was uncalled for Randy.
ambassador1022 4 years ago
Why do you think it was Ad Hominem, ambassador1022? If an atheist were going around saying that you could prove that God _doesn't_ exists, and kept saying that after every single one of there arguments were shown to be wrong, I would not hesitate to call them intellectually dishonest.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
"If an atheist were going around saying that you could prove that God _doesn't_ exists,"
Yes but Randy there is a difference here. They are attacking a position/worldview while you are attacking them personally. I can see how you can construe an implicit insult in the former but the latter is perfectly explicit and simply not necessary. Snake Oil salesman? Intellectual faith healers? That is simply inappropriate.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Because I'm blocked by Veritas, I answer him here.
1. Why not?
2. Up until randyhelzerman's video on Newtonian Physics, it was First Cause. Now? None at all.
3. It doesn't really matter
4. Yes, and it didn't cause me to leave religion.
5. To stop people like you from making our lives unbearable.
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
??? he blocked you? Wow. You are a strong atheist, but you arn't rude; I think I've said much ruder things in my vids than I've ever heard you say. Anyways, with regards to #2, glad I could help :-) And with regards to #5, yeah, I think most atheists on YouTube just want to preserve our secular society from turing into a mullah-acracy.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
As I told rozeboosje, essentially, he made some fallacious arguments against g0at, I said something like "you're intelligent, I think you can figure it out. I'll give you a day to see what logical fallacies you used before I expose them" and the next day, I was blocked. It might have been out of line by some weird standard, but I think it was OK.
A mullah-acracy would be unbearable, but right now it seems more likely north america will become a christocracy
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
I would also say Randy that I have heard this response before and Craig in particular has spoken on it in refutation. Also, this one part of the Kalam is not the centerpiece of the argument and you know that. Giving this, your response in no way refutes the Kalam because Premise 2 has much more than the entropy discussion attached to it...and thats assuming this somehow refutes P2 to begin with.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Hi Veritas48, can you give me a reference for Craig's refutation of this particular argument?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I will see if I can upload it actually. I'm thinking he talked about a VERY similar refutation in a semester long class he taught at Talbot on the Kalam argument itself... in which I was able to snag a complete copy of from a friend on campus.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Hi veritas, that would be great, and if you remember enough of the argument against this, it would be great if you could post a summary about it.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
BTW, this was not meant as a refutation of P2---P2 I agree with. This is an argument against an argument for P2 given by Craig (as told by Veritas48). This was meant, actually, (perhaps misguidedly) as a show of good faith--that I was willing to say that Craig's logic is bad even when it supports a position I actually agree with. The argument also has independent value by showing how we don't need to postulate God in order to account for the non-random character of the visible universe.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I agree Ambass.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Why do you always spend your own time responding and refuting the points of others but you never make videos about what you believe?
cda6590 4 years ago
*sigh* you're right, I should do more of that, but I'm trying :-) Did you see my vid on the diagonal argument? Also, I just did two vids on the Gospel of Mark which weren't responses to anybody......
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
... soooo how is what he is saying in his videos NOT what he believes? How is it that questioning the ideas of others is NOT a valid way of conveying your own? Dialectic is still cool imo :P
oldiousnei 4 years ago
Well you only hear what the other guy allows you to hear. Randy usually doesn't go off on a tangent and explain anything unrelated to the subject at hand. He usually sticks right on the topic the other guy made up. So some of the things he says leaves his position somewhat vague.
cda6590 4 years ago
Hmm, well I respect your point of view although I don't detect a vagueness in his positions. Perhaps you should ask him about what you would like to know.
oldiousnei 4 years ago
Hi cda6590, yeah, YouTube only allow us 10 minutes per vid, so there's not a lot of time for leasurly tangents :-) But if there's anything in particular you'd like to talk about, I'd be happy to do a vid on it. e.g. valyok asked me about what I thought about Dr. Craigs 'refutation" of hume, and I did 3 or 4 vids on it...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Well you seem to be very sympathetic to the Christian cause. You've even said you enjoy reading the Bible. So the most obvious question to ask is why exactly are you an atheist? If you can answer in 500 characters or less, that will be satisfiable enough!
cda6590 4 years ago
Ha, that's a good topic, and it deserves more than a 500-character response :-) I'll make a vid on it, just for you :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
@randyhelzerman
Your "random array of bits" graph is a very, very poor example of randomness. Allthough the digits in your graph are randomly generated, immense order is evident.
a. Notice that yor have exactly 11 lines and 11 columns of digits. Why? How is this random? Why aren't the numbers just scattered all over the screen in a "true" random fashion, as childrens buildings blocks may be scattered all over the floor of a room.
.....
revo1974 11 months ago
@revo1974 The claim is that any sufficiently large object will have parts which are less random than the whole object. If that claim is true, them the universe, being very large, must have large parts which are nonrandom.
randyhelzerman 11 months ago
@randyhelzerman
There will parts more random than the whole object as well.
The Universe exhibits a very high degree of order, structure, harmony and regularity. These attributes are better explained by design than chance. It all boils down to what you favor more, design or a multiverse. In my opinion design is the more simple and elegant answer. With this said anyone who claims to know anything about the designer(s) is full of it.
revo1974 11 months ago
@randyhelzerman
...b. Why are you using only two digits, 0's and 1's? Why digits at all? Why not just have all sorts of different characters, shapes, designs and scibble?
That graphh is an extremely poor example of what true randomness, disorder and chaos is.
revo1974 11 months ago