[Southack]

"The math does not consider the likelihood of the combination of pre-existing component parts." - PatrickHenry

Of course it does, but let me explain how so that we're clear on that point as you aren't the first to make that claim.

The math proof is making the assumption (axiomatic for our case) that data forms in sequence naturally/randomly/without-intelligent-aid.

For the math, it does not matter if the data sequences naturally in small groups that come together at later times, or one after another in one large group.

In the end, either process is eventually going to produce an output string of a certain length.

Our math is then looking inside that output string to see if our correct data sequence(s) is/are evident.

And that is mathematically valid whether the data sequences itself one datum after another or in various sized groups of data one after another.

[Lev]

Our math is then looking inside that output string to see if our correct data sequence(s) is/are evident.

375 addresses this point. Also see 336 if you have a min.

[PatrickHenry]

For the math, it does not matter if the data sequences naturally in small groups that come together at later times, or one after another in one large group.

Maybe it doesn't matter for your math (although I believe it does), but in the real world, it matters a whole lot. Once you have an ocean full of carbon-based molecules -- which isn't terribly difficult to achieve given the natural tendency of carbon to combine with oxygen and such -- it's probably downhill from there until you get a self-replicator. And once that happens, the rest is virtually inevitable.

[Condorman]

For the math, it does not matter if the data sequences naturally in small groups that come together at later times, or one after another in one large group.
In the end, either process is eventually going to produce an output string of a certain length.
Our math is then looking inside that output string to see if our correct data sequence(s) is/are evident.
And that is mathematically valid whether the data sequences itself one datum after another or in various sized groups of data one after another.

I would direct your attention to post #373 which partially addresses this point. The article also makes the (invalid) assumption that each trial takes place in a historical vaccuum; that for each consecutive trial, one sequence is exactly as likely to occur as any other sequence. Feedback mechanisms inherent in natural systems produce a bias that this mathematical model does not address.

[mlo]

The math proof is making the assumption (axiomatic for our case) that data forms in sequence naturally/randomly/without-intelligent-aid.

There you go again. It has already been explained to you that 1) the assumption is false, and 2) random does not mean "without-intelligent-aid".

And yet you continue to repeat the same old things you should already know are false. What is the point of discussing anything with you? Why are you so thick-headed? Is it intentional?

[PatrickHenry]

No response to #380? Or to any of the very good points made lately by others? Giving up?