# 1.35 trillion years to accidentally solve a cube blindfolded?



## cookingfat (Mar 11, 2009)

I was searching for something different and stumbled across this > 

According to Britain's Sir Fred Hoyle:

The human cell has some 200,000 proteins, and that the smallest of these would require the same time to accidentally form as it takes the blindfolded person to solve the Rubik's cube - whether or not you approach this from a nucleic acid standpoint. A blindfolded person could solve a Rubik's Cube in 1.35 trillion years, if he made one move per second and never rested.

"Imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon."


this is the website it came from http://bibleprobe.com/creationism.htm


----------



## brunson (Mar 11, 2009)

Specious, overly simplistic and wrong.

My question to people that argue for creationism, "Was evolution too hard for your god to create?"


----------



## MichaelErskine (Mar 11, 2009)

I suppose God created those who believe in evolution too...

...on further consideration, I'm not touching this subject with a 10 foot pole


----------



## tim (Mar 11, 2009)

msemtd said:


> I suppose God created those who believe in evolution too...
> 
> ...on further consideration, I'm not touching this subject with a 10 foot pole



So there are people who believe there's no evolution? I didn't know that.


----------



## shelley (Mar 11, 2009)

Yes, there are people who believe their deity of choice magically poofed everything into existence about 6000 years ago. You must be lucky to live in an area where everyone is educated enough so that this isn't an issue.

The argument about random protein building is too simplified. Certain protein structures are more stable than others and are more likely to stay around/more likely to be duplicated. For the Rubik's cube analogy, it's as if a non-cuber were trying to solve a cube, but if he sees that a block or a layer is completed, he will try to preserve it. Still a simplified explanation, but that approach will take significantly less than a trillion years (that one guy did it in 26, and he even had time to eat and sleep).


----------



## Kian (Mar 11, 2009)

tim said:


> msemtd said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose God created those who believe in evolution too...
> ...



I believe most people that say they don't believe in evolution are not suggesting there is no natural selection but, rather, are challenging some of the perceived notions of what "evolution" entails. For example, irreducible complexity is incompatible with so meof tenets of evolution from organic molecules to multi-celled organisms.

And, of course, there are some that would deny it completely. But there's really no use arguing with those who will not be swayed. The debate for other facets of the theory, however, is important to its scientific worth.


----------



## KubeKid73 (Mar 11, 2009)

msemtd said:


> I suppose God created those who believe in evolution too...
> 
> ...on further consideration, *I'm not touching this subject with a 10 foot pole*



But if you did touch it with a 10 foot pole, you still wouldn't like this subject. That expression never makes sense. It should be I would only touch this subject with a 10 foot or longer pole.


----------



## Zarxrax (Mar 11, 2009)

I think the point of the original post was probably more that it's saying it would take someone blindfolded over 1 trillion years to solve a rubik's cube, but we all know full well that a blindfolded person can solve the cube in a matter of minutes 
At least that's how I took it.


----------



## cookingfat (Mar 11, 2009)

Zarxrax said:


> I think the point of the original post was probably more that it's saying it would take someone blindfolded over 1 trillion years to solve a rubik's cube, but we all know full well that a blindfolded person can solve the cube in a matter of minutes
> At least that's how I took it.



yes that was the intention, I didn't want to spark a religious debate at all, so please don't. 

I don't know if the guy meant 'solve the cube blindfolded without knowing how to do it', but even if he did, where does he get his figures from? I'm guessing he doesn't actually know anything about blindfold cubing at all and it's all just made up.


----------



## soccerking813 (Mar 11, 2009)

Just something to add to the little debate...
Have you ever thought to think about just how unnatural humans are? We humans are like leeches, taking as much out of the earth as we can.


----------



## Ton (Mar 11, 2009)

tim said:


> msemtd said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose God created those who believe in evolution too...
> ...



And some people *believe* in evolution ...Weird


----------



## tim (Mar 11, 2009)

Ton said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > msemtd said:
> ...



Are you referring to my post? If so, don't take the word "believe" too serious, i just used the same word as msemtd.


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 11, 2009)

Just pointing out, you wouldn't solve it after 1.35 trillion years, you would just happen to solve it once in that time span (following those calculations).

It's my opinion that arguing about whether or not there is a god is just about the stupidest conversation you can have. You know why? Because no living person will ever prove that there is or that there isn't.

The above statement is only meant to apply to the creation of the universe, and matter (how stuff got here, basically). It doesn't matter if it is discovered that the universe came to be from something else, because something had to create that, and then there's an infinite cycle of what created what. When you think about it, the most likely end is some form of omnipotent being (but then you raise the question of who created said omnipotent being :confused.

I think it's perfectly okay however to claim that pretty much all of the bible is false, because there's conclusive scientific evidence towards that.

I have loads more to say, but not enough time to say it. Maybe I'll make a YouTube video about it in the near future (DO NOT think I have any serious stuff on my YouTube channel right now, because it is currently filled with videos specifically designed for complete randomness. You might find them funny though. Some do, some don't. The target audience is teenagers, mind you).
/rambling

So that's about it, and remember, buy waffles.


----------



## brunson (Mar 11, 2009)

Waffles are irreducibly complex. I don't believe in them.


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 11, 2009)

brunson said:


> Waffles are irreducibly complex. I don't believe in them.


Well I eat about 16 a day and seem to maintain a very healthy weight somehow.

You may be onto something.


----------



## (X) (Mar 11, 2009)

You can't prove that Santa does exist nor that he doesn't , but it's quite obvious he doesn't...


----------



## Zarxrax (Mar 11, 2009)

(X) said:


> You can't prove that Santa does exist nor that he doesn't , but it's quite obvious he doesn't...



WHAT? Then... who's been leaving me presents under the christmas tree for these past 26 years??


----------



## byu (Mar 11, 2009)

Zarxrax said:


> (X) said:
> 
> 
> > You can't prove that Santa does exist nor that he doesn't , but it's quite obvious he doesn't...
> ...



The cubing fairy


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 11, 2009)

(X) said:


> You can't prove that Santa does exist nor that he doesn't , but it's quite obvious he doesn't...


Sure you can. There's lots of evidence that Santa doesn't exist, but that can't be said about god (remember, I'm only talking about what created the universe here). Santa was thought up specifically as a lie, and lies don't randomly become physical matter. That's conclusive evidence. There is always some uncertainty in anything, so you have to accept simple things as fact or we could never get anything done. However, there isn't any evidence at all to disprove something creating the universe, because we can't even perceive something that complex. If you find any, please let me know.

By the way, I don't believe in god, just in case you weren't sure.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 11, 2009)

WaffleCake said:


> Santa was thought up specifically as a lie


Proof please.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 11, 2009)

WaffleCake said:


> Just pointing out, you wouldn't solve it after 1.35 trillion years, you would just happen to solve it once in that time span (following those calculations).


Neither statement is really correct. And they're really about equivalent.


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 11, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> WaffleCake said:
> 
> 
> > Santa was thought up specifically as a lie
> ...


Ever read "The Night Before Christmas"? That's the origin of the modern Santa. That's a fiction story. Fiction = not true = lie. Santa Clause goes back way further than that, but all of his different forms were made up by someone or another as something to tell to children.


----------



## tim (Mar 11, 2009)

WaffleCake said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > WaffleCake said:
> ...



That the stories about Santa are fiction, doesn't mean that Santa itself is fiction.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 11, 2009)

cookingfat said:


> The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.



I agree with this.

But here's the thing: that's not what the actual scientific theories of evolution or abiogenesis say (not even close). The point is that life is self-replicating. The most basic possible self-replicating thing was created first, maybe by luck and maybe due to a few even simpler things which had already been constructed; and once that was in existence life began to expand and eventually begin to evolve to best fit its environment, which I'm guessing lead to the creation of an actual cell with a cell membrane and DNA and all.

Think of it like a very complex computer program. If you look at one of those you might think "oh, someone who was a complete genius must have designed this, look how many parts there are that fit together just right, I could never do that". But that's not how it was done. Computer programs aren't started out fully formed; you start with the most rudimentary possible program (that works) and then slowly add features and move things around until you have a huge program. It no more takes an omnipotent being to create a cell than it takes an omnipotent programmer to create a million-line program; it's just a lot of very small steps which are each easy but which end up constructing something amazing.


Also, early Earth was not as simple as "put random amino acids together and you have one chance to make this protein". In a soup of random chemicals there were probably billions of interactions per second and it took on the order of a billion years for a proper cell to be created... that's a LOT of attempts. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that something with self-replicating properties could be randomly created in a billion years.


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 12, 2009)

tim said:


> WaffleCake said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...


They're not stories, they're where he came from. It's like Bigfoot, El Chupacabra, witches, werewolves, etc... Stuff that is made up does not become real.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 12, 2009)

WaffleCake said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > WaffleCake said:
> ...


How do you know the author didn't describe real events?


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 12, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> WaffleCake said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...





WaffleCake said:


> There is always some uncertainty in anything, so you have to accept simple things as fact or we could never get anything done.


----------



## tim (Mar 12, 2009)

WaffleCake said:


> They're not stories, they're where he came from. It's like Bigfoot, El Chupacabra, witches, werewolves, etc... Stuff that is made up does not become real.



You missed my point. I didn't say made up stuff becomes real. Things people create in their minds might already be there and they're describing real facts without even knowing it.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Mar 12, 2009)

Well what if you're a speedcuber and you can just constantly turn at say, 7+ tps, that would lower your time of solving it blindfolded significantly wouldn't it?

P.S. - first page has hardly anything to do with the topic...


----------



## darkzelkova (Mar 12, 2009)

You could also solve a cube in 5 minutes by chance. That's why it is chance.


----------



## JLarsen (Mar 12, 2009)

So the purpose of the actual topic here, as in the original quote, is to make a comprehensible analogy of how unlikely human life was to form, no? I'm asking because I see a lot of people saying otherwise.


----------



## riffz (Mar 12, 2009)

No, the original poster had no intentions of sparking such a debate. He just posted it for the cubing statement.


----------



## cookingfat (Mar 12, 2009)

riffz said:


> No, the original poster had no intentions of sparking such a debate. He just posted it for the cubing statement.



yes that's right, I pointed it out earlier >



cookingfat said:


> Zarxrax said:
> 
> 
> > I think the point of the original post was probably more that it's saying it would take someone blindfolded over 1 trillion years to solve a rubik's cube, but we all know full well that a blindfolded person can solve the cube in a matter of minutes
> ...



I just randomly came across it and thought it would be worth posting, as the guy has some ridiculous claims.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 13, 2009)

wow, 1.35 trillion years.
Well, people, I'd love to join the debate (I actually would, no sarcasm here) but I'm off for my first serious attempt at BLD. Wish me luck


----------



## qqwref (Mar 14, 2009)

Buggy793 said:


> Not sure if I should do this, but I'm just going to say that I do believe that there is a God. THE God, Lord Almighty. Anyone who doesn't believe me, read the book *The reason for God* by Timothy Keller. It's directed to 20-year old people, but heck. I'm sure you can handle it if you don't believe in the obvious.



Not sure if I should do this, but I'm just going to say that I do believe that there are aliens out there. THE Aliens, the little green men. Anyone who doesn't believe me, watch the documentary *Did Aliens Build the Pyramids?* by the Discovery Channel. It's directed to Americans, but heck. I'm sure you can handle it if you don't believe in the obvious.

PS: God does not exist any more than Santa does


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 14, 2009)

Are you trying to say that it's ridiculous to believe that aliens exist?
Because I do in fact believe that life could independently form in two places.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 14, 2009)

Aliens might very well exist but almost certainly not in the way we typically think of them (i.e. humanoids with flashy advanced technology who abduct people). I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of life on other planets somewhere in the universe, but I'd be much, much more surprised if there was and it resembled humans at all.

My point was that there's no direct evidence for the existence of aliens. We can theorize all we want about whether they exist or not, but there's really no way to tell. The fact is that aliens do not affect our lives (unless they are inside the solar system they would have to life many thousands of light years away, so we couldn't communicate with them), and I think God's really the same way. For everything where you could say "God must have caused X", there are other explanations, and even if you think God exists and watches over us you have to admit he basically never intervenes in human affairs (see the fact that plenty of Christians get terminal illnesses and cancer and are NOT saved, while on the other hand powerful, evil, non-religious people are allowed to live to old age and perpetuate their atrocities for decades). The best we have on both counts is that some people say that certain things seem like they must be caused by God/aliens, but that's not proof in either case.

What this leads to is the fact that I have a problem with anyone who says belief in God is "obvious" or "logical" or anything like that. _[Important side point: I don't actually care what you believe in, you're free to believe anything you want, just don't ask or expect me to agree with your belief if there is no evidence to support it.]_ If you look at it from a scientific standpoint the evidence (if you think there even is any) is not conclusive... and if you really think it is, I think you ought to believe in aliens and bigfoot and all of that as well, because the evidence is just as (un-)convincing there too. There is just ONE difference, and it's critical: many people are brought up from childhood believing in some kind of deity, so they don't really get the chance to decide whether to believe or not. Of course it's "obvious" for them, but you can raise children to believe pretty much anything (see: Santa Claus).


----------



## WaffleCake (Mar 14, 2009)

Guys, drop the God argument. I already explained why it's stupid and pointless. As for aliens, well, I'm certain other life exists somewhere out there but I doubt that there is any form of sentient life anywhere near similar to humans capable of communication with us, let alone space travel. Even if there is, they would be so far away that reaching us would be ridiculous.


----------



## luke1984 (Mar 15, 2009)

Buggy793 said:


> There's always a chance that you could solve it in twenty moves. Or less for that matter...
> 
> Not sure if I should do this, but I'm just going to say that I do believe that there is a God. THE God, Lord Almighty. Anyone who doesn't believe me, read the book *The reason for God* by Timothy Keller. It's directed to 20-year old people, but heck. I'm sure you can handle it if you don't believe in the obvious.



You claim there's a god, prove it. The burdent of proof is on the person who makes the claim. And no, I'm not going to read some manipulative book. I've tried that a couple of times before. Every book or article I've read with arguments for the existence of god was completely based on bold assumptions and horrible misconceptions about evolution. There's no valid reason to believe there's any kind of god.

(It's a shame my first post isn't about cubing though...)


----------



## Mr Cubism (Mar 30, 2015)

Buggy793 said:


> There's always a chance that you could solve it in twenty moves. Or less for that matter....



What is more difficult:
1. to calculate the odds for solving a 3x3 randomly in 20 moves?
2. solve it randomly in 20 moves?


----------



## unsolved (Mar 31, 2015)

cookingfat said:


> I was searching for something different and stumbled across this



It's even much more difficult for the 4x4x4 cube.







...which I computed here...

http://lightningcloudcomputing.com/OO_4x4x4/info_05.shtml


----------



## JemFish (Mar 31, 2015)

unsolved said:


> It's even much more difficult for the 4x4x4 cube.
> 
> ...



Wow. The "Time To Examine All" isn't terribly scary, but the "@ 100 million/second" sure is. Do you think Faz has a tps of 100 million/second? If so, he could solve a 7-move scramble with a maximum time of 2 minutes 38 seconds.


----------

