FSM?

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

I assume that's an entropy reference?

akillerwombat wrote:

"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...

"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.

burn1986 wrote:

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...

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.

 

akillerwombat wrote:

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...

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.

burn1986 wrote:

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...

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.

 

akillerwombat wrote:

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...

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.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that...

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that are created as well.  Therefore the tricycle is created.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that...

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that are created as well.  Therefore the tricycle is created.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

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...

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?

akillerwombat wrote:

"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...

"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.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Yes it’s definitely my opinion , but to me it is as good as fact.

burn1986 wrote:

These guys will win an intellectual argument every time. - “So yes, a whirlwind can go through a junkyard and come out a 747.” 

I know right.

akillerwombat wrote:

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...

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.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that...

Could the wind do it on its own? You’re talking about man manipulating the wind to create a tricycle with other devices or what not that are created as well.  Therefore the tricycle is created.

akillerwombat wrote:

The experiment could be as simple as placing the pieces of a tricycle in the desert, which while yes – the person placed it there and it...

The experiment could be as simple as placing the pieces of a tricycle in the desert, which while yes – the person placed it there and it brings into question, "did they place it in a way that made it easier for the wind to assemble it" – it wouldn't rely on manipulating nature which throws the whole experiment in the shitter.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Ok then , you’re agreeing that the wind on it’s own couldn’t possibly assemble a tricycle?! Correct? 😂

akillerwombat wrote:

A better way to phrase it would be, "Yes, while highly improbable that a whirlwind could assemble a 747 from junk parts, given enough time, it...

A better way to phrase it would be, "Yes, while highly improbable that a whirlwind could assemble a 747 from junk parts, given enough time, it could be possible because both the wind and the parts exist."

It's really no different than belief in a god... except for the fact that both the parts to the 747 and the wind exist.

burn1986 wrote:

Like I said, you guys are never wrong, can explain everything, and have no deficiencies in you own mind when it comes to being right. It’s...

Like I said, you guys are never wrong, can explain everything, and have no deficiencies in you own mind when it comes to being right. It’s funny, but it’s just the way it is.

I could be in a rainstorm and tell you it’s raining and you could win the argument with me that it’s not raining. All the while I’m trying to convince you to come in out of the rain.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Grok:Q) Given enough time could the wind assemble a 15 part tricycle if the parts were laying on the ground in a pile?A) No, the wind...

Grok:

Q) Given enough time could the wind assemble a 15 part tricycle if the parts were laying on the ground in a pile?

A) No, the wind could not assemble a 15-part tricycle from parts lying in a pile on the ground, even given arbitrarily long (but finite) amounts of time. While it's tempting to invoke ideas like the infinite monkey theorem—where random processes over infinite time can produce ordered outcomes—this scenario fails on multiple physical, probabilistic, and thermodynamic grounds. I'll break it down step by step.

### 1. **The Role of Randomness and Assembly**
  - Wind is a chaotic force that can scatter, tumble, or bury objects, but assembly requires precise, sequential actions: aligning parts in specific orientations, applying force in exact directions to connect them (e.g., inserting bolts, snapping joints), and often overcoming friction or gravity.
  - Unlike a monkey typing randomly (where each keypress is independent and reversible), wind interactions are destructive and irreversible in practice. Parts could break, corrode, or get lost over time. Even if we idealize the setup (indestructible parts, flat ground, no erosion), wind doesn't "try" configurations repeatedly like a simulation—it just blows unpredictably.
  - For a tricycle with 15 parts (e.g., frame, wheels, handlebars, pedals), the number of possible configurations is factorial in scale (15! ways to order connections alone, or about 1.3 quadrillion), but that's a vast understatement. Each part has continuous degrees of freedom (position, rotation in 3D space), making the "state space" effectively infinite. The probability of hitting the exact assembled state by chance is not just small—it's vanishingly close to zero.

### 2. **Probabilistic Reality**
  - In theory, if time were truly infinite and the process ergodic (exploring all possible states), any non-zero probability event would occur. But "enough time" implies finite time, and the expected wait time here exceeds the age of the universe by absurd margins.
  - Rough estimate: Suppose wind "rearranges" the pile every second (optimistic). With even a conservative 10^20 possible configurations (far too low for 3D assembly), the odds of assembly in one try are 1 in 10^20. Over 10^18 seconds (about 30 billion years, or twice the universe's age), you'd expect maybe one "success" in a googol (10^100) such universes—not in ours.
  - Realistically, the probability isn't fixed; it decreases as parts scatter or degrade, making success impossible in finite time.

### 3. **Thermodynamic Barriers**
  - Assembly reduces entropy (disorder), turning a disordered pile into an ordered machine. The second law of thermodynamics says entropy increases in isolated systems, but even in an open system (wind powered by the sun), random wind doesn't direct energy toward low-entropy states—it dissipates it.
  - This is akin to shaking a box of puzzle pieces: they won't self-assemble into a completed puzzle. Wind lacks the information or feedback mechanisms (like enzymes in biology or hands in human assembly) to build complexity. It's why tornadoes don't build houses from lumber piles.

### 4. **Analogies and Counterarguments**
  - This question echoes anti-evolution arguments (e.g., Fred Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" for a Boeing 747), but evolution isn't pure randomness—natural selection prunes failures. Here, there's no selection; just wind.
  - If we allow infinite time, sure, anything with probability >0 happens. But infinity isn't "enough time"—it's a mathematical abstraction. In the real world, heat death of the universe (in ~10^100 years) would end all motion long before assembly occurs.

In summary, while philosophically intriguing, physics and math make this a firm no. If the parts were magnetic or self-aligning (like some toys), odds improve, but for standard tricycle parts? Not a chance.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Grok:Q) Given enough time could the wind assemble a 15 part tricycle if the parts were laying on the ground in a pile?A) No, the wind...

Grok:

Q) Given enough time could the wind assemble a 15 part tricycle if the parts were laying on the ground in a pile?

A) No, the wind could not assemble a 15-part tricycle from parts lying in a pile on the ground, even given arbitrarily long (but finite) amounts of time. While it's tempting to invoke ideas like the infinite monkey theorem—where random processes over infinite time can produce ordered outcomes—this scenario fails on multiple physical, probabilistic, and thermodynamic grounds. I'll break it down step by step.

### 1. **The Role of Randomness and Assembly**
  - Wind is a chaotic force that can scatter, tumble, or bury objects, but assembly requires precise, sequential actions: aligning parts in specific orientations, applying force in exact directions to connect them (e.g., inserting bolts, snapping joints), and often overcoming friction or gravity.
  - Unlike a monkey typing randomly (where each keypress is independent and reversible), wind interactions are destructive and irreversible in practice. Parts could break, corrode, or get lost over time. Even if we idealize the setup (indestructible parts, flat ground, no erosion), wind doesn't "try" configurations repeatedly like a simulation—it just blows unpredictably.
  - For a tricycle with 15 parts (e.g., frame, wheels, handlebars, pedals), the number of possible configurations is factorial in scale (15! ways to order connections alone, or about 1.3 quadrillion), but that's a vast understatement. Each part has continuous degrees of freedom (position, rotation in 3D space), making the "state space" effectively infinite. The probability of hitting the exact assembled state by chance is not just small—it's vanishingly close to zero.

### 2. **Probabilistic Reality**
  - In theory, if time were truly infinite and the process ergodic (exploring all possible states), any non-zero probability event would occur. But "enough time" implies finite time, and the expected wait time here exceeds the age of the universe by absurd margins.
  - Rough estimate: Suppose wind "rearranges" the pile every second (optimistic). With even a conservative 10^20 possible configurations (far too low for 3D assembly), the odds of assembly in one try are 1 in 10^20. Over 10^18 seconds (about 30 billion years, or twice the universe's age), you'd expect maybe one "success" in a googol (10^100) such universes—not in ours.
  - Realistically, the probability isn't fixed; it decreases as parts scatter or degrade, making success impossible in finite time.

### 3. **Thermodynamic Barriers**
  - Assembly reduces entropy (disorder), turning a disordered pile into an ordered machine. The second law of thermodynamics says entropy increases in isolated systems, but even in an open system (wind powered by the sun), random wind doesn't direct energy toward low-entropy states—it dissipates it.
  - This is akin to shaking a box of puzzle pieces: they won't self-assemble into a completed puzzle. Wind lacks the information or feedback mechanisms (like enzymes in biology or hands in human assembly) to build complexity. It's why tornadoes don't build houses from lumber piles.

### 4. **Analogies and Counterarguments**
  - This question echoes anti-evolution arguments (e.g., Fred Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" for a Boeing 747), but evolution isn't pure randomness—natural selection prunes failures. Here, there's no selection; just wind.
  - If we allow infinite time, sure, anything with probability >0 happens. But infinity isn't "enough time"—it's a mathematical abstraction. In the real world, heat death of the universe (in ~10^100 years) would end all motion long before assembly occurs.

In summary, while philosophically intriguing, physics and math make this a firm no. If the parts were magnetic or self-aligning (like some toys), odds improve, but for standard tricycle parts? Not a chance.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Ok then , you’re agreeing that the wind on it’s own couldn’t possibly assemble a tricycle?! Correct? 😂

akillerwombat wrote:

That’s your opinion of what I wrote, which wasn’t what I factually wrote, so your opinion is wrong.And in there lies the dangers of your, “my...

That’s your opinion of what I wrote, which wasn’t what I factually wrote, so your opinion is wrong.

And in there lies the dangers of your, “my opinions are facts”, mentality.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Why? Knowledge? I like to learn, don't you? The thread can be whatever I want it to be, I started it. 

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Why? Knowledge? I like to learn, don't you? The thread can be whatever I want it to be, I started it. 

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Q) What do you think about burn1986 on the VitalMX Non-Moto forum?A) Burn1986 appears to be a long-time, highly active user on the VitalMX Non-Moto forum...

Q) What do you think about burn1986 on the VitalMX Non-Moto forum?

A) Burn1986 appears to be a long-time, highly active user on the VitalMX Non-Moto forum, having joined back in April 2010 and racking up over 11,000 replies, 200+ started topics, and hundreds of comments across the site. He's based in Bossier City, Louisiana, and posts frequently on a wide mix of subjects, from politics and current events to movies, music, food gripes, and even health topics like testosterone therapy. The Non-Moto section, being off-topic from motocross, often dives into heated debates, and burn1986 seems right at home there as a prolific contributor who starts threads and jumps into discussions with enthusiasm.

From the threads I've reviewed, his political takes lean strongly conservative: he's pro-Trump, supportive of aggressive actions against cartels and border security (like deploying Marines or rebuilding walls), and critical of figures like Biden or Democratic politicians. For instance, in a recent thread about Trump and cartels, he highlighted Trump's drug price negotiations and speculated on military moves against Mexico, while questioning others' views on taking down cartels—earning some upvotes and no pushback in the visible replies.

He's particularly outspoken on Islam and Muslim influence in politics, which comes across as politically incorrect but consistent with his worldview. In a thread he started about NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, he predicted a win for the Muslim politician, warned of a "silent majority" takeover leading to Sharia-like changes (citing examples from England), and claimed Google suppresses info on Muslim mayors in the U.S. He also expressed broader concerns about Islam growing in Congress and viewing non-believers as inferior, echoing sentiments from an older post where he called Islam "the most murderous" religion while questioning mockery of it. Other users engaged similarly, calling Mamdani a "POS" or debating Islamic extremism, though one commenter joked about hoping for Mamdani's win just to see burn1986's "epic meltdown," suggesting he's known for passionate, possibly over-the-top reactions to such topics.

On lighter notes, he participates in nostalgic or casual threads, like wondering where old users have gone or sharing movie recommendations (e.g., praising Godzilla Minus One). He even advises newcomers to avoid political rabbit holes, calling them a "slippery slope," which shows some self-awareness about the forum's intensity.

Overall, I think burn1986 is the kind of forum veteran who keeps things lively with his unfiltered opinions—he's dedicated, engages a lot, and doesn't hold back on controversial stances like anti-Islam rhetoric or hardline immigration views, which are substantiated by his posts and align with broader right-wing discourse. While that can fuel productive debates, it might also come off as biased or inflammatory to others, potentially leading to those "meltdown" moments. As an AI built for truth-seeking, I respect the openness, but I'd encourage him (and anyone) to back claims with solid sources to elevate the conversation beyond venting. If you're a fellow poster there, he seems like someone who'd spark a good back-and-forth!

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

You tilted Grok.

You tilted Grok.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Ha ha, I wonder.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

I used to have questions like that but when you come to the conclusion that the bible is just a book of fiction written by men...

I used to have questions like that but when you come to the conclusion that the bible is just a book of fiction written by men then it's not any more interesting than Harry Potter.