Fair enough. :worry:

First, nothing happens randomly, or by chance. There are reasons things happen, if not then logic would be useless, and our understanding of the universe would impoverished to the degree that we would probably die before we reached the age of 1 week old.

The monkeys typing Shakespeare is impossible, not probable, because monkeys don't live for an infinite period of time. Probabilities are only probable when you don't incorporate all the facts.

Meaning is the relationship between some effect and some cause(s). When you read a post (the effect), you're able to get at the causes via meaning. The cause is the idea in someone's head and their intent to communicate it on a forum. So in reading words, you are getting at the idea in someone's head.

Actual monkeys and typewriters aren't needed for the thought experiment. Mechanistic probabilitarians are imagining random character generation which can continue indefinitely.

Meaning, in this context, is a metaphysical property. The improbability of DNA ocurring by chance raises the question: does its ocurrence have cosmic meaning?

Actual monkeys and typewriters aren't needed for the thought experiment. Mechanistic probabilitarians are imagining random character generation which can continue indefinitely.

Meaning, in this context, is a metaphysical property. The improbability of DNA ocurring by chance raises the question: does its ocurrence have cosmic meaning? — Chris Hughes

How do you distinguish a thought experiment from imagination?

There is a difference between random character generation, and processes that can only build on what it has in the present. "Random" characters generated are random precisely because they aren't taking into account the present conditions, or state-of-affairs, that exists and that natural selection has to work with. Natural selection doesn't just add another two legs to an organism. It can only filter or promote conditions that exist in the present, into the next generation. Mutations can only happen to existing DNA structures, not make up completely new ones out of thin air.

Meaning, in this context, is that effects are about their causes, and not randomly generated. If they were, there would be no such thing as meaning, even for us human beings.

How do you distinguish a thought experiment from imagination?

The thought experiment is: imagine a device producing random characters indefinitely. Probablity maths says it'll reproduce the works of Shakespeare.

The thought experiment is: imagine a device producing random characters indefinitely. Probablity maths says it'll reproduce the works of Shakespeare. — Chris Hughes

Which has nothing to do with how the universe works from existing states to new states. The universe does not consist of new states coming about completely on their own without any prior cause, or present state-of-affairs, shaping what comes next.

The thought experiment is: imagine a device producing random characters indefinitely. Probablity maths says it'll reproduce the works of Shakespeare. — Me

Which has nothing to do with how the universe works from existing states to new states — You

It's similar to how you get from primeval soup to DNA. Until the ocurrence of DNA there was no evolution, so how did that amazingly complex molecule come to exist?

Random chemical interactions took place over a very long time (like the imagined random character generator). Some may have resulted in proto-DNA structures, but without evolution (and without the benefit of the thought experiment's infinity), how would the huge number of exact steps needed go arrive at self-replicating life-forms have ocurred?

Meaning, in this context, is that effects are about their causes, and not randomly generated.

Exactly - and my metaphysical question is: if the effect was DNA, and it was not randomly generated, was its cause cosmic meaning?

That's another way of saying "design". Design doesn't need a designer. Look at evolution. It only needs a process. In this hypothesis, one not yet understood.

It's similar to how you get from primeval soup to DNA. Until the ocurrence of DNA there was no evolution, so how did that amazingly complex molecule come to exist? — Chris Hughes

Energy put into the a stable system.

Think of natural selection as an environmental feedback mechanism where the current state-of-affairs of the environment influences the development of the individual things within that environment. Predators are individuals in an environment, but are part of the environment and influence the evolution of prey, and are themselves evolving based on how the prey evolves. You cannot have change in one without the influence of the other.

Random chemical interactions took place over a very long time (like the imagined random character generator). Some may have resulted in proto-DNA structures, but without evolution (and without the benefit of the thought experiment's infinity), how would the huge number of exact steps needed go arrive at self-replicating life-forms have ocurred? — Chris Hughes

They weren't random. They were based on existing conditions.

Exactly - and my metaphysical question is: if the effect is DNA, and it was not randomly generated, what's its cause? — Chris Hughes

The pre-existing conditions of slightly less complex molecules coming together to form more complex ones thanks to the stable energy and environment that existed at that time.

Well, you've done better than anyone else - come up with the explanation for the origin of DNA.

my metaphysical question is: if the effect was DNA, and it was not randomly generated, was its cause cosmic meaning? - That's another way of saying "design". Design doesn't need a designer. Look at evolution. It only needs a process. In this hypothesis, one not yet understood. — Chris Hughes

Yet once you have life it isn't at all simply random. Mutations can be random, but what life forms adapt and prosper and what become extinct isn't at all random. The Darwinian aspect of evolution isn't at all random. You might say that an asteroid hitting the Earth 66 million years ago was a random event, but that small animals survived the extinction event and large animals couldn't cope with the dramatic changes isn't something random.

I would say life itself creates predictability and meaning. And as you pointed out, it doesn't necessarily need a designer.

If we assume that life isn't unique to humans, then the probability of it arising isn't infinitesimally small.

Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA.

Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA.

I hope you mean evolution, not genetic modification. Either way, I'm asking about what meaning DNA's improbable ocurrence might have.

... life itself creates predictability and meaning

Yes - DNA is life, which evolves meaningfully. Was the evolution of humans, able to think about this, predictable?

Neither. Don't look to meaning, look to use.

... look to use

What do you mean?

That your OP stands on a misconstrual of meaning. Meanign is constructed by people; DNA has no meaning.

You might be able to build a similar argument using information instead, but you will still have to avoid the further objection of teleology. Causation does not work backwards; The desirability of a certain outcome does not bring that outcome about.

Perhaps a design-like process, a super-blind-watchmaker, is at work - and the universe is "evolving" (in inverted commas out of respect for the brilliant and unique selfish gene).

Was the evolution of humans, able to think about this, predictable? — Chris Hughes

Once an animal species gets the ability to use complex language and furthermore use written language, then it's quite predictable that we will have these discussions in some way.

Perhaps the Universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure's nose.

Thats just silly. :wink:

Was it predictable that a life form would get the ability to use complex language?

Indeed.

Not enough. There's no possible way in which we can exist. I don't believe in God. I just don't believe that we exist. And if we do we cannot comprehend it. But we should always try.

If we assume that life isn't unique to humans, then the probability of it arising isn't infinitesimally small.

If you mean we should assume there's separate DNA life elsewhere in the universe, then yes, the ocurrence of DNA is less improbable. That's kind of circular, though

... we cannot comprehend it. But we should always try.

Yes, we should - and we are. And we can help each other.

I don't see the problem here. — Chris Hughes

The problem was that statement about the meaning of Shakespeare's works being in his head. That's just not the case, and we know that beyond a reasonable doubt. So...

The works of Shakespeare (the product of his mind) are the subject of the monkeys/typewriters thought experiment, which is used by many scientists to defend the idea that DNA code could arise by chance, given a very long time.

Oh, I get it now... you're a true believer... That makes sense. The argument about monkeys and typewriters has the exact same ground as any and all arguments for God. Logical possibility.

... you're a true believer

No, I'm not - I'm an agnostic. I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe.