I took it off topic with my comments about SingedWing, Stripe. And that's what led to Pekkle's reply. So it's my fault. Sorry for the distraction.
My proposal was to illustrate that the mathematics does not support Knight’s claim that the Marilyn Monroe picture would never appear. If the math is correct, it is not because it is “mine”. The math would be equally true for you, or for Knight. So let’s say it in regular straightforward English. Knight said the MM image would NEVER (his caps) appear. Was his claim a) true or b) false? Can you give a direct one –word (“True” or “False”) answer?ThePhy. Your proposal proves what you want it to prove. Now will you address the point of this thread?
What's it going to take to get a decent response, one that is on topic, from this lot? :sigh:
Knight's claim was true.My proposal was to illustrate that the mathematics does not support Knight’s claim that the Marilyn Monroe picture would never appear. If the math is correct, it is not because it is “mine”. The math would be equally true for you, or for Knight. So let’s say it in regular straightforward English. Knight said the MM image would NEVER (his caps) appear. Was his claim a) true or b) false? Can you give a direct one –word (“True” or “False”) answer?
Pekkle. If you received a radio signal that was the ET equivalent of the message stamped on the side of the Voyager spacecraft, ie an introduction to life on another world, would you consider the message to be randomly generated or of intelligent origin?Phrase it as a question and I'll try to answer it, I haven't followed this thread.
The chances of the message being background radiation are so low that they would require an incredibly large time in which we are listening for messages. We have only have the capability for 50 odd years, less even. The probability of such a random an unprobabilistic even occuring during the 14.7 billion years of this universe, let alone during the 50 odd years we've been listening to them are so low it is ridiculous.
Nothing unfair about addressing a fallacy that Knight himself brought directly into this thread. See this post.That's patently unfair, ThePhy. The maths is perfectly simple. The chances of 211 alphanumeric characters randomly generating a message from space aliens is way more likely than an image of Marilyn showing up on an untuned TV monitor. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that the numbers have been dealt with and believe you are using this topic to avoid the conflict between the general atheist views on this topic and the other topic.
Pekkle. If you received a radio signal that was the ET equivalent of the message stamped on the side of the Voyager spacecraft, ie an introduction to life on another world, would you consider the message to be randomly generated or of intelligent origin?
You're basing everything here on the 1 in close-enough-to-infinity chance that you might be wrong. Why not just discuss the issue instead of quibbling over nothing?Nothing unfair about addressing a fallacy that Knight himself brought directly into this thread. See this post.
I think you will have a hard time showing that I have claimed that the answer to the MM issue determines the answer to the intelligent signal issue. If the MM issue is settled, then I am perfectly willing to focus on what the intelligent signal means. But the reason I (and a number of others) chose “intelligent” over “random” for the signal hinges crucially on the same type of math as the MM issue. Are we ready to proceed to the intelligent signal issue, with a direct acknowledgment in place that Knight’s ridicule of any possibility of the MM pic was incorrect?
No, he wasn't. Do you believe it will happen?Knight certaintly was not correct in saying it would never happen.
We are still all in agreement :thumb:Intelligent origin of course.
Evolution is not responsible for life being created. No one believes this.This is no argument for intelligent design though.
On the issue of the complexity of life there are three options:
1. Random (no one believes this)
2. Evolution
3. Intelligent design
Oh! I get the point you're making now. The difference wasn't between the alien message and the picture of Marilyn. It was between the picture and the tennis ball!Nothing unfair about addressing a fallacy that Knight himself brought directly into this thread. See this post.
No, he wasn't. Do you believe it will happen?
Notice I said complexity of life.Evolution is not responsible for life being created. No one believes this.
:rotfl:FedUpWithFaith confessing his saviour... :noid:
All of which are impossible without the direct input of intelligence.
:first:Oh! I get the point you're making now. The difference wasn't between the alien message and the picture of Marilyn. It was between the picture and the tennis ball!
The chances in increasing unlikelihood go:
Alien message.
Picture of Marilyn.
Tennis ball through a brick wall.
FedUpWithFaith confessing his saviour... :noid:
All of which are impossible without the direct input of intelligence.
Just because there is a mathematical probability that a tennis ball can pass through a brick wall doesn't mean that it is ever going to happen. That's the funny thing about math and probabilities.... they eventually part ways with reality.Are we ready to proceed to the intelligent signal issue, with a direct acknowledgment in place that Knight’s ridicule of any possibility of the MM pic was incorrect?
The chances in increasing unlikelihood go:
Alien message.
Picture of Marilyn.
Tennis ball through a brick wall.
FedUpWithFaith confessing his saviour... :noid:
All of which are impossible without the direct input of intelligence.
:chuckle: You got me....and it looks like we have a contradiction!
The Picture of Marilyn and Tennis ball through a brick wall examples did not invoke the direct input of intelligence, so according to Stripe they are both impossible.
Although, also according to Stripe, the Picture of Marilyn is more likely than the Tennis ball through a brick wall.
:chuckle: You got me.
Mark Mr Jack down for attributing the signal to intelligence.I'd accept that as conclusive evidence of intelligent life.
Count Layla in for intelligence being the source of the signal.I'd probably be inclined to believe it was intelligent life.
Mark PlastikBuddha down for attributing the signal to intelligence.I would say intelligence.
Mark Pekkle down for attributing the signal to intelligence.I would believe it, seeing as background interference from stars would not form itself into anything resembling a coherent coherent sentence.
Mark ThePhy down for attributing the signal to intelligence.I (and a whole lot of other SETIsts) would be ecstatically happy at what (barring any later disproof) was our first recognized extra-solar contact.
Mark Granite down for attributing the signal to intelligence.Given the terms of the scenario I'd say it was a genuine signal.
Mark FedUpWithFaith down for attributing the signal to intelligence.the probability that such a string of letters (which depends on the letter coding method of the sender that you did not specify) could have appeared by chance , even in the entire 14 billion years of the Universe, is miniscule
Mark Johnny down for attributing the signal to intelligence.Because at some level we all make the judgment call that it is more likely there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe beaming us a signal than it is that the signal was randomly generated without any sort of selection mechanism in place.
Mark Edmond_Dantes down for attributing the signal to intelligence.as a reasonable man, would not only assume intelligence behind it but that said intelligence has intimate and privileged knowledge pertaining to us.
Again lets review..... all the folks (below) believe that unintelligent random chance can (and in fact WILL LIKELY) create highly complex things (such as a tennis ball passing effortlessly through a solid brick wall) all acknowledge that a simple 40 word message from space would most likely have been generated by intelligent design!
All of them believe that in the real word randomness can be a cause for complex (or even simple) results.