The Ultimate 747

[Flack_attack 0]

Whilst reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, I came across one of the main arguments in his book: The Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument. It comes from the analogy which posits that the chances of life randomly generating were tantamount to a fully working Boeing 747 being assembled from random debris by the force winds of a hurricane. I had heard variations of it before, and I have heard Crow invoke a similar argument, namely "that any Creator must be more complex than his creation, thus less likely". However, I still can't seem to grasp its relevance to God. Dawkins concedes that the gravitational constants being exactly right and the abiotic synthesis theory of life starting are extremely "improbable" events (or perhaps inevitable?), but then counters by conjecturing that a God complex enough to tune gravitational constants and spark life must be more unlikely than however unlikely said events were. Why? Why does an infinitely complex being, that existed always and "outside of time", have to be more unlikely than his creation? Because he is more complex? I don't think this is something that one can say is "unlikely" because of relative complexity (which I would argue is not even relative at all); it either is or it isn't, and the doesn't the vast unlikelihood of things being how they are now (or maybe not...) lead us to believe that, at the very least a divine knob-tuner, might be more likely than not??

[Mattnxtc 0]

a similar example is used when showing the problems with unintelligent design...lay out ever part of the 747 in multiple pieces and put a blind man in the room and ask him to put the plane together

[LongLiveYorke 38]

a similar example is used when showing the problems with unintelligent design...lay out ever part of the 747 in multiple pieces and put a blind man in the room and ask him to put the plane together

And then give him about 4 billion years, the ability rebuild the pieces if he needs to, and about 100 Billion other blind men all doing the same thing. Enjoy your 474.

[Loismustdie 0]

And then give him about 4 billion years, the ability rebuild the pieces if he needs to, and about 100 Billion other blind men all doing the same thing. Enjoy your 474.

That's just funny right there.

[BWToth 0]

Given and infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of chimps all with typewriters, is it a fact that at some point in time one of those chimps will type out Hamlet, in order, from beginning to end, both backwards and forwards.

[Bromich 0]

Whilst reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, I came across one of the main arguments in his book: The Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument. It comes from the analogy which posits that the chances of life randomly generating were tantamount to a fully working Boeing 747 being assembled from random debris by the force winds of a hurricane. I had heard variations of it before, and I have heard Crow invoke a similar argument, namely "that any Creator must be more complex than his creation, thus less likely". However, I still can't seem to grasp its relevance to God. Dawkins concedes that the gravitational constants being exactly right and the abiotic synthesis theory of life starting are extremely "improbable" events (or perhaps inevitable?), but then counters by conjecturing that a God complex enough to tune gravitational constants and spark life must be more unlikely than however unlikely said events were. Why? Why does an infinitely complex being, that existed always and "outside of time", have to be more unlikely than his creation? Because he is more complex? I don't think this is something that one can say is "unlikely" because of relative complexity (which I would argue is not even relative at all); it either is or it isn't, and the doesn't the vast unlikelihood of things being how they are now (or maybe not...) lead us to believe that, at the very least a divine knob-tuner, might be more likely than not??

What is the context in which Dawkins is referring to the 747 argument? I understand that it was first coined by Fred Hoyle on an unrelated subject and has been foolishly adopted by some creationists as an analogy against the workings of evolution. Is Dawkins simply reapplying the logic to a designed world or is he driving home another point?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Given and infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of chimps all with typewriters, is it a fact that at some point in time one of those chimps will type out Hamlet, in order, from beginning to end, both backwards and forwards.

Of course, impossible to prove.

[Bromich 0]

Of course, impossible to prove.

There are quite a few mathematicians that would disagree with you.Kolmogorov is the first that springs to mind: http://eom.springer.de/Z/z099240.htm

[BWToth 0]

Of course, impossible to prove.

There is nothing to prove, its a mathematical fact.

[DonkSlayer 1]

There are quite a few mathematicians that would disagree with you.Kolmogorov is the first that springs to mind: http://eom.springer.de/Z/z099240.htm

There is nothing to prove, its a mathematical fact.

I read the link. Didn't see it against the actual example of "Hamlet" that was given earlier.Easy for me because whether or not it's good math, you need to use "theory", and not "fact", because you haven't proven it using the scientific method. Mathematicians don't get a free pass from that.If it WAS really factual or provable, you would have a more specific time reference, vs. "infinity". While the time frame might be massive for Hamlet to appear from a monkey, surely it can locked down in a frame of reference less vague than "infinity."Let me assure you that in being skeptical about your Hamlet theory that I am in now way taking sides on the OP.

[Bromich 0]

I read the link. Didn't see it against the actual example of "Hamlet" that was given earlier.Easy for me because whether or not it's good math, you need to use "theory", and not "fact", because you haven't proven it using the scientific method. Mathematicians don't get a free pass from that.If it WAS really factual or provable, you would have a more specific time reference, vs. "infinity". While the time frame might be massive for Hamlet to appear from a monkey, surely it can locked down in a frame of reference less vague than "infinity."Let me assure you that in being skeptical about your Hamlet theory that I am in now way taking sides on the OP.

Not exactly sure where you are coming from, the Kolmogorov law is proven fact, not theory. From the article:"Next, if is a sequence of independent random variables, then the probability that the series converges can only be or . This fact (together with a criterion that makes it possible to distinguish these two cases) was established by A.N. Kolmogorov in 1928"

[BWToth 0]

I read the link. Didn't see it against the actual example of "Hamlet" that was given earlier.Easy for me because whether or not it's good math, you need to use "theory", and not "fact", because you haven't proven it using the scientific method. Mathematicians don't get a free pass from that.If it WAS really factual or provable, you would have a more specific time reference, vs. "infinity". While the time frame might be massive for Hamlet to appear from a monkey, surely it can locked down in a frame of reference less vague than "infinity."Let me assure you that in being skeptical about your Hamlet theory that I am in now way taking sides on the OP.

Just because something can't be proven in a practical sense doesn't mean its not valid. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on infinity....infinity means that an endless number of chimps are typing, for an endless amount of time.Every sentence ever spoken or written in every language in the world would eventually be typed out by these monkeys. That's the point...given an endless amount of time it WILL without a doubt happen because you have FOREVER for it to.I'm not a mathematician, but I can clearly see this.As for the OP, his wording it confusing and I'm not sure of the point he is making.Is it that: It is more likely that there is a God complex enough to create life, than the liklihood of it being random? Even though the liklihood of each is very slim?But the liklihood of the existence of soemthing complex enough to create life is even more slim than the liklihood of life randomly occurring right?So life randomly occurring is more likely?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Just because something can't be proven in a practical sense doesn't mean its not valid. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on infinity....infinity means that an endless number of chimps are typing, for an endless amount of time.Every sentence ever spoken or written in every language in the world would eventually be typed out by these monkeys. That's the point...given an endless amount of time it WILL without a doubt happen because you have FOREVER for it to.I'm not a mathematician, but I can clearly see this.As for the OP, his wording it confusing and I'm not sure of the point he is making.Is it that: It is more likely that there is a God complex enough to create life, than the liklihood of it being random? Even though the liklihood of each is very slim?But the liklihood of the existence of soemthing complex enough to create life is even more slim than the liklihood of life randomly occurring right?So life randomly occurring is more likely?

I wasn't sure what the OP was doing either, I couldn't tell who's side he was on, if any I understand the theory. Does it mean Hamlet will be written out EXACTLY as is, or that the letters included in Hamlet will be punched out eventually?The reason I'm also questioning it's validity toward the the 747 argument is that there HAS been a cause and result: us. So, we are not merely a point in infinity, nor should we be naive enough that the amount of time the Earth has been exposed to enough sunlight is long enough for "infinity" to have occurred and life to have formed. See what I"m saying?

[BWToth 0]

I wasn't sure what the OP was doing either, I couldn't tell who's side he was on, if any I understand the theory. Does it mean Hamlet will be written out EXACTLY as is, or that the letters included in Hamlet will be punched out eventually?The reason I'm also questioning it's validity toward the the 747 argument is that there HAS been a cause and result: us. So, we are not merely a point in infinity, nor should we be naive enough that the amount of time the Earth has been exposed to enough sunlight is long enough for "infinity" to have occurred and life to have formed. See what I"m saying?

It means Hamlet will be written out exaclty as shakespeare wrote it from beginning to end, with punctuation etc.Well, i'd say if life did randomly occur, we got pretty lucky that it occurred only what? 4.something billions years from the beginning of time.I'd like some more statisics on this type of thing.What are the straight up odds that any one randomly formed planet with end up having life?How many planets are there?I always thought scientists stated that there are in all likelihood hundreds or thousands of other life sustaining planets, and then a smaller chance that one of those has 'intelligent' life.If the universe is constantly expanding, and more galaxies and planets are constantly forming at an exponential rate, then it seems that the requisite 'things' that had to fall into place to create life where in fact INEVITABLE, it was just a matter of time. The only thing I see as being 'lucky' is how quickly it occurred.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The only thing I see as being 'lucky' is how quickly it occurred.

Exactly. We probably shouldn't waste too much breath until we have a better perception of how "lucky" it was.HIJACK:Would it be as meaningful to find simple alien organisms on Mars as it would be to make radio contact with another species about as far along evolution-wise as we are?Would having a "foil" society on another planet unify ours?

[myenemy 0]

Not exactly sure where you are coming from, the Kolmogorov law is proven fact, not theory. From the article:"Next, if is a sequence of independent random variables, then the probability that the series converges can only be or . This fact (together with a criterion that makes it possible to distinguish these two cases) was established by A.N. Kolmogorov in 1928"

If part of your equation is infinity than it seems to me that it would take an inifinite amount of time for the things you say to occur, ie. the chimps would actually have to type for infinity to write Hamlet. You cant actually say that it will occur somewhere along a time line because there is no such thing as a time line to infinity. So since we all know that Earth has not been here for an infinite amount of time the liklihood of randomness necessary to create human life could not have yet happened.

Would it be as meaningful to find simple alien organisms on Mars as it would be to make radio contact with another species about as far along evolution-wise as we are?

I think clearly it would be more "meaningful" to find intelligent life. For better or for worse, it would stimulate the growth of our society in some parallel sense as oppose to insipent life which simply be a study of the beginnings of life. Both would be exhaustively educating though.

[BWToth 0]

If part of your equation is infinity than it seems to me that it would take an inifinite amount of time for the things you say to occur, ie. the chimps would actually have to type for infinity to write Hamlet. You cant actually say that it will occur somewhere along a time line because there is no such thing as a time line to infinity. So since we all know that Earth has not been here for an infinite amount of time the liklihood of randomness necessary to create human life could not have yet happened.I think clearly it would be more "meaningful" to find intelligent life. For better or for worse, it would stimulate the growth of our society in some parallel sense as oppose to insipent life which simply be a study of the beginnings of life. Both would be exhaustively educating though.

I don't know the mathematical equations for it, but if it takes an infinite amount of time, and you are given and infinite amount of time...this it seems like it would still happen. It could happen on the 1st try, or 100000000 or somewhere 'approaching' infinity.That is my point about the randomness of life occurring. However old the Universe is...12 billion yrs or something? Life DID/HAS occurred within that amount of time, but that doesn't mean the odds of it happening are 1 in 12 billion years.Does anyone know the odds of life occurring? What did it say in that TIME article??If we know what those odds are then we can see how 'lucky' we really are.For example, if the Universe has formed 100 billion planets since the big bang (i don't know the number), and the odds (I don't know what they are) of life springing up are 1 in 20 billion then since the beginning of time odds would dictate that there have been 5 planets that spawned life.If there are 100 billion planets, and the odds of like occurring are 1 in 900 zillion of life springing up, then i'd say it is pretty astounding that life occurred within the first 100 billion.like the lottery, 1 in 200 million wins it, so if you and 200 friends all buy a ticket you increase your chances but not by a very significant amount. you're odds are now only 1 in 1 million...right?? i think.Quick, unreliable google search says the odds are 10^-500000 or something whatever that works out to, for the random occurrence of life.Here's a good quote for the Hamlet thing:"because if infinite time is available even the most improbable event will have occurred an infinite number of times (as long as its probability is great than zero)."Athel Cornish-Bowden and María Luz Cárdenas <---whoever they are.

[brvheart 1,752]

a similar example is used when showing the problems with unintelligent design...lay out ever part of the 747 in multiple pieces and put a blind man in the room and ask him to put the plane together

And then give him about 4 billion years, the ability rebuild the pieces if he needs to, and about 100 Billion other blind men all doing the same thing. Enjoy your 474.

I'm a big Yorke fan, but this was definately pretty funny.

Just because something can't be proven in a practical sense doesn't mean its not valid. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on infinity....infinity means that an endless number of chimps are typing, for an endless amount of time.Every sentence ever spoken or written in every language in the world would eventually be typed out by these monkeys. That's the point...given an endless amount of time it WILL without a doubt happen because you have FOREVER for it to.I'm not a mathematician, but I can clearly see this.As for the OP, his wording it confusing and I'm not sure of the point he is making.Is it that: It is more likely that there is a God complex enough to create life, than the liklihood of it being random? Even though the liklihood of each is very slim?But the liklihood of the existence of soemthing complex enough to create life is even more slim than the liklihood of life randomly occurring right?So life randomly occurring is more likely?

1) I like this thread.2) Toth, How can you 'clearly see' your ideas, even though "I'm not a mathematician", but you can't see the obvious point that the OP is making? He is questoining Dawkins' conclusions.

Dawkins concedes that the gravitational constants being exactly right and the abiotic synthesis theory of life starting are extremely "improbable" events (or perhaps inevitable?), but then counters by conjecturing that a God complex enough to tune gravitational constants and spark life must be more unlikely than however unlikely said events were. Why? Why does an infinitely complex being, that existed always and "outside of time", have to be more unlikely than his creation? Because he is more complex?

3) I agree with Toth that the monkeys will eventually type out the correct words, in order.... but how long would this take in years? My guess is that it would be at least a billion times longer than 4 to 5 billion years.

[Bromich 0]

If part of your equation is infinity than it seems to me that it would take an inifinite amount of time for the things you say to occur, ie. the chimps would actually have to type for infinity to write Hamlet. You cant actually say that it will occur somewhere along a time line because there is no such thing as a time line to infinity.

Why you think it would take an infinite amount of time is a bit strange. You know that it will happen due to Kolmogorov's law. When it does happen there will be x amout of keystrokes proceeding it. If it takes an infinite amount of time to occur, then x would be a set of infinite keystrokes and within an infinite set of keystroke we know that Hamlet will appear. So another Hamlet would appear before our HamletTherefore x cannot be infinite, it must be finite, so Hamlet will appear in a finite amount of time. It will likely be a massively large amount even compared to the age of the universe, but it will be finite. Not only will the first copy appear in a finite amount of time, additional copies will occur an infinite amount of times.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm a big Yorke fan, but this was definately pretty funny.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. And what's the deal with razor blade disposals on airplanes, I mean is the Wolfman shaving or something...?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

3) I agree with Toth that the monkeys will eventually type out the correct words, in order.... but how long would this take in years? My guess is that it would be at least a billion times longer than 4 to 5 billion years.

There, alas, is the rub.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Would having a "foil" society on another planet unify ours?

A "foil" society. Cute.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Why you think it would take an infinite amount of time is a bit strange.

Saying something takes an infinite amount of time is saying that it never happens.In mathematics, we say that if an event that has non zero probability and occurs in finite time with probability of 1, that event occurs in finite time "almost surely." (Consider this a definition).

[crowTrobot 2]

I had heard variations of it before, and I have heard Crow invoke a similar argument, namely "that any Creator must be more complex than his creation, thus less likely". However, I still can't seem to grasp its relevance to God.

i usually just say the "universe" (meaning all that exists) and a creator are for practical purposes interchangable in anything you can possibly say about complexity or odds of existing. if you postulate that the universe is improbable for any reason, the same reasoning must also apply to a creator. conversely if you postulate that a creator is NOT improbable for any reason, then that same reasoning can also apply to a creator-less universe.in other words if you postulate that the universe requires an explanation, then by the exact same reasoning a creator must also require one. if you reason that a creator does NOT require an explanation, then by the same reasoning neither does the universe. either could be infinite and/or transcend our local spacetime etc. thus god is additional complexity - a logically unnecessary complication.

Dawkins concedes that the gravitational constants being exactly right and the abiotic synthesis theory of life starting are extremely "improbable" events (or perhaps inevitable?)

for all we know inevitable is just as likely as improbable. you can't figure odds without complete information, which we don't have.

then counters by conjecturing that a God complex enough to tune gravitational constants and spark life must be more unlikely than however unlikely said events were. Why? Why does an infinitely complex being, that existed always and "outside of time", have to be more unlikely than his creation? Because he is more complex?

necessarily, yes.

I don't think this is something that one can say is "unlikely" because of relative complexity (which I would argue is not even relative at all); it either is or it isn't, and the doesn't the vast unlikelihood of things being how they are now (or maybe not...) lead us to believe that, at the very least a divine knob-tuner, might be more likely than not??

the anthropic principal trumps any such reasoning - the odds of us existing here and now are 100%, since we do.

[Flack_attack 0]

Ah, Crow, thank you for the enlightenment. With regards to comments about my "side" on the OP: I purposely (however vaguely) took neither side. I was not trying to uphold or refute any argument, merely trying to grasp Dawkins' main argument in his book that I couldn't seem to fathom, for whatever reason. Thats why the subtitle of the post is "explanation".