Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Feynman was asked about religion in this video:
The easiest theory to understand: humans are carbon-based life forms, not vastly different from the others, except with an over developed brain capable of self-awareness. This led to thought beyond basic survival, leading to a questioning of human existence.
Over time many seemingly rational ideas were proven false as science evolved. The question of god/gods, however, remains eternal, as it’s impossible to disprove the existence of something that’s never been proven to exist.
The earth and its life forms, to quote Bob Ross, are happy accidents. Why? Because math, physics, statistics, etc. The known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions/trillions of stars, and trillions/quadrillions of planets in orbit, existing over billions of years. With those numbers it’s impossible for life to not exist, not only on Earth, but all over the universe, which is much too vast for humans to expect contact, but it’s fun to think about.
I did start an Aliens poll thread the same time I started this one and we discussed that topic a little more there but one of the things that puzzles me the most is, as logical as it "seems" that the universe should be teaming with life, we still haven't found any actual evidence for it beyond life on earth. I wish we did know about intelligent life beyond Earth because it would make it a little easier to argue against god and the bible. Although if we did find evidence of other intelligent civilizations out there religious people would just move the goal posts a little more.
I’ve read just enough of this thread to know that I’m one of the dumbest people here.
But, I am a Christian. I watched one of the Feynman videos, and with the complexity he shares about the way even atoms react, it makes me even more solid in the belief of a Creator. God.
To believe that all of this has just evolved on its own would be like believing a tornado hit a scrap yard and created a fully functioning 747.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
You should see the Feynman lectures where he really goes deep on something.
There are a ton of his lectures out there and they are all fascinating.
Systems do not get better over time. They break down and devolve. Matter does not follow Darwian paths.
Using the vast scope of 'time' as reasoning for life to come about is flawed logic. The more time involved suggests the likelihood would go down.
Of course, IMHO.
True for a closed system, but not for an open system.
Feynman talking about AI back in 1985:
"Prove it...." ~ WordNerd
J/K
I was actually thinking about him (and Mr Seat Bounce) when I started these poll threads. Would be interesting to have their takes. I had some big battles with them but if I remember their stance on all these subjects I think I would be more in agreement with them today. Maybe what they said in the battles caused me to think harder.
Your analogy is not far fetched. Give enough time and enough instances, perhaps a tornado could assemble a 747. The parts would need to be available, of course, and we’re talking trillions time trillions of tornadoes and scrap yards, over billions of years! The scope and scale of the universe is so vast almost anything is possible over time.
Huh
So, given enough time…random chance assembles a 747? 🤣
I think he was basically referring to the infinite monkey theorem. Of course there isn't an infinite amount of time so....
The Infinite Monkey Theorem is a thought experiment in probability theory that illustrates the concept of randomness and infinity. It posits that if an infinite number of monkeys were given typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would almost surely produce any given text, such as the complete works of Shakespeare, purely by random chance.
### Key Points:
1. **Setup**: Imagine a monkey (or many monkeys) typing randomly on a typewriter with a finite set of keys (e.g., letters, numbers, and punctuation). Each key press is equally likely and independent of previous presses.
2. **Core Idea**: Given infinite time or an infinite number of monkeys, every possible sequence of characters, no matter how complex or specific, will eventually be produced. This includes meaningful texts like books, poems, or even gibberish.
3. **Probability and Infinity**:
- The theorem hinges on the mathematical concept of "almost surely," meaning the probability of producing any specific text (e.g., *Hamlet*) approaches 100% as the number of attempts or time becomes infinite.
- For any finite text, no matter how long, the probability of randomly typing it is extremely small but non-zero. With infinite attempts, even improbable events become certain.
4. **Example**:
- Suppose a typewriter has 50 keys, and you want the monkey to type the word "banana" (6 characters).
- The probability of typing "banana" in one attempt is (1/50)^6, which is astronomically small (1 in 15,625,000,000).
- However, with infinite attempts, the monkey will eventually hit this exact sequence, along with every other possible sequence of characters.
5. **Misconceptions**:
- The theorem doesn’t imply that monkeys will quickly or reliably produce meaningful text. In practice, finite time and resources make it effectively impossible.
- It’s a mathematical abstraction, not a practical experiment. Real-world constraints like time, typewriter durability, or monkey behavior are irrelevant to the theoretical point.
6. **Applications and Insights**:
- The theorem is often used to illustrate concepts in probability, randomness, and the vastness of infinity.
- It has parallels in discussions about the emergence of order from chaos, such as in cosmology or evolutionary biology, though these are analogies, not direct applications.
- It’s also referenced in discussions about computer algorithms, cryptography, and the generation of random data.
### Limitations:
- In a finite setting (e.g., one monkey typing for a billion years), the chances of producing a specific complex text remain vanishingly small.
- The theorem assumes perfect randomness and ignores practical constraints like the physical limits of typewriters or the coherence of the output.
In essence, the Infinite Monkey Theorem is a colorful way to demonstrate that, given infinite opportunities, even the most unlikely outcomes become inevitable. It’s a theoretical curiosity rather than a practical expectation.
Im no Kip Thorne, but from simple searches I am lead to believe our Universe is always becoming less and less ordered.
"In the universe, entropy increases. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system, such as the universe, will always increase over time, according to Boston University physics website. This means that the universe is constantly moving towards a state of greater disorder and randomness."
Have you read anything referring to the expansion of the universe and the coinciding effects on “greater disorder and randomness”?
Absolutely as a whole. The Grok explanation I posted several posts back explains why it doesn't apply to a local open system (at least for a particular amount of time). My understanding is that after the Sun burns out our Solar system will indeed succumb to entropy, and in fact the sum total of our solar system is becoming less ordered continually now. But, for the short time that the Sun is emitting energy things can become more ordered here on Earth. While the Sun burns the Sun itself is becoming less ordered, but things on the Earth become more ordered while that energy is rolling in. Of course the Sun is way larger than the Earth so overall the trend is by far to the less ordered side. Once the Sun burns all of it's fuel, things will reverse on Earth, we'll be gone, and entropy will win out. But there is certainly a chance I do not understand that part correctly?
This video hardly has any views but it explains it the way I understood Grok's explanation:
Pit Row
Haha!
I would never happen even if it was a kids tricycle with 15 parts and pieces.
"Never" is a dangerous word... and quite bizarre to see in a thread about god.
It's like, I can't prove the wind would put together a tricycle in a certain amount of time anymore than you can prove the existence of god, yet one of them is deemed "never possible" which is even more head scratching because we have physical evidence that both "the wind" and "tricycles" exist where as we have zero physical evidence that a god exists.
Sounds like he touched a nerve in there 😎
Pretty sure it was decided several pages ago that there’s no God, no belief, no faith, nothing unexplainable, tornadoes produce airplanes, and “the universe” decides all.
Yes tricycles exist because they were created . I completely disagree that there’s zero physical evidence that god exists, IMO it’s all around you and literally everywhere you look. But this has already been brought up and went over. Are you new to this thread?
Another random Feynman video. He goes a little deeper on a subject here. I usually have to watch these multiple times in order to grasp but I love the way he interacts with the people he teaches. I'm not sure I agree with his wardrobe choice sometimes however.
You know the whole thread is a one way street right? Just sayin
But it’s all good
He does seem annoyed.💯
Nah, no nerve touched, it's an interesting thought exercise.
And upon thinking about it a little more, I suppose you could attempt to show someone that the wind could put together a tricycle because the objects exist and you could set up an experiment. Granted, it may never happen because it seems incredibly improbable, but it is still possible.
We'd most likely never live long enough to see how the experiments would play out but as a betting man I'd bet that you could prove that the wind is capable of putting together a tricycle before you could prove that god exists.
"I completely disagree that there’s zero physical evidence that god exists, IMO it’s all around you and literally everywhere you look."
That's an opinion, not a fact.
If it were a fact this thread wouldn't exist.
So, if I win an argument, am I right?
Yes it’s definitely my opinion , but to me it is as good as fact.
Post a reply to: FSM?