Replies

"The problems we are discussing are "intractable", not "impossible", due mostly to the primitive and inefficient nature of our computers. Current engineering limits and theoretical engineering limits don't come remotely close to each other in this domain. Nonetheless, you act as though current engineering limits ARE a theoretical limit."

Yes. I am acting that way because you said that producing an example or demonstration of a computer program self-forming in a random environment was "trivial".

Now you seem to be backtracking; perhaps seeking intellectual refuge in the wilderness of potential future engineering breakthroughs...

Let me make this clear: not only were you WRONG to claim that such an exercise was trivial, but you were deceptive when you tried to extrapolate from that alleged triviality the false point that this was mathematically proven.

It is in fact decidedly unproven, and perhaps even disproven by math, Nobel Prize winners, and the lack of infinite time.

Yes. I am acting that way because you said that producing an example or demonstration of a computer program self-forming in a random environment was "trivial".

It is trivial to demonstrate the validity of the mathematics. Our computers are a bit slow to give a really nice example in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. you probably would turn up your nose at examples that ARE tractable as being too simple). On the other hand, quantum computers can sift extremely large combinatorial spaces in one shot, so that would make the O(k^n) into a O(n), which does make it trivial. And while very simple quantum computers have been built, I certainly don't own one.

Now you seem to be backtracking; perhaps seeking intellectual refuge in the wilderness of potential future engineering breakthroughs...

Don't be a twit. It isn't fantasy engineering, but just substantially fancier versions of existing capabilities. I'm not backtracking; what you take as backtracking is me dropping an argument that isn't going anywhere and trying to drag the argument back to a relevant point. I'm working a lot of hours these days (starting yet another new company) and don't have time to spend on this forum arguing facts that people aren't interested in hearing or even doing the most rudimentary research on.

And this is exactly the kind of bullshit I don't have time for. Have you ever actually picked up a math text relevant to the subject we are talking about? It IS mathematically proven and a fundamental theorem that is used in a dozen different technical fields. The only reason I learned it was that it was a necessary mathematical foundation for work I do. You certainly won't find any mathematicians that will refute it. And it is simply laughable that you blithely confuse "infinite" with "finite but extremely large", which is something no one with any type of serious mathematics background would do. With all due respect, you clearly are not qualified to argue advanced topics of mathematics. You handle the evolution/ID argument pretty well but you are out of your league on the matter of the mathematics.