# 52, and other unimaginably large numbers

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
It has been said that if you shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting arrangement of 52 cards will be unique... in that the odds are extremely high that never in the history of card-shuffling has that particular arrangement of cards ever existed. I thought that was pretty cool, so I looked more into it.

52 factorial, noted as "52!", represents the odds of there being a particular arrangement of 52 randomly ordered items. i.e. (52 x 51 x 50 x 49... x 2 x 1) = 52!

This is a large number. "How large?" is the focus of this.

52! is approximately equal to 8.066x10^67

The Universe is approximately 4.4x10^17 SECONDS old.

If you were to start arranging cards at a rate of 1 deck per second (you are a very fast shuffler) starting at the Big Bang, by now you will have not even scratched the surface of the number of possible arrangements of a deck of cards. This is how we know that is it incredibly unlikely that a deck of shuffled cards has ever been seen before.

So how long IS 52! seconds, to put it into perspective?

Try this experiment, if you have the time:

Pick a spot on Earth's equator.
Start a timer that counts the seconds to 52!
Stand in that spot for 1 BILLION YEARS
After 1 billion years, take a single step East
Wait another 1 billion years, and take another step...
After you have walked all of the way around the world, take 1 drop of water out of the pacific ocean and discard it (*poof*)
Repeat this process of taking 1 step every 1 billion years and removing a drop of water after each complete trip around the world.
Once you have completely drained the Pacific ocean, take a sheet of paper and place it on the ground.
Now, the ocean is magically refilled, so you can repeat all of the steps above, placing another piece of paper on top of the previous one after completely draining the pacific one drop at a time as you make it around the world again (1 step per 1 billion years).
Once you have stacked up enough sheets of paper to reach THE SUN, do you think you will have run out of time?

Nope. At this point, you are not quite 5% there. Repeat all of those steps from the very beginning approximately 250 more times, and you will then have lived long enough to have created every possible arrangement of cards, as long as you arranged them non-stop 1 time every second.

Large numbers are... really large.

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
I see your and raise you the .

To get an idea of how fast that grows, A(3,3) = 61 and A(4,4) > ((52!)!)!

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
So I assume the POWERBALL people ran an expectation of about 50 of million betters every week hit the Powerball jackpot, on average, about once every 5 weeks. or at a rate of 1 in 300,000,000

Powerball odds: http://www.smartluck.com/free-lottery-tips/powerball-569-pb.htm

Which I think is why their number calculated from the empirical rate of winning at a rate of once every five weeks comes to about i in 292 million as opposed to the weekly expectation of a winner calculation results in 69!/(64!+5!) + 1!/26!/(1!+25!) or 1 in 13,482,621,560

So the expected rate of a winner seems, empirically, to be about one fifth of the calculated odds or about the number entered in the article, 292 million.

I got this from my study of the probability of association effects by adding a rings of Saturn variable to a correlation.

... so I agree with beero1000 starting from raw numbers doesn't take into account actual rates of achieving a second hand with the same arrangement which needs inclusion for accounting for number of shufflers and rates of shuffling

What if we presume 100 million folders folding at a rate of one hundred hands per hour. Seems to me the probability of a second hand identical to the first hand becomes a lot more likely. I mean if there are 100 million original hands don't you think one of them would achieve a second identical hand a lot faster than the naked one arrangement of one original hand by an original shuffler?

##### Contributor
I still don't get the title. Shouldn't it be "52!" instead of "52"?

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
So I assume the POWERBALL people ran an expectation of about 50 of million betters every week hit the Powerball jackpot, on average, about once every 5 weeks. or at a rate of 1 in 300,000,000

Powerball odds: http://www.smartluck.com/free-lottery-tips/powerball-569-pb.htm

Which I think is why their number calculated from the empirical rate of winning at a rate of once every five weeks comes to about i in 292 million as opposed to the weekly expectation of a winner calculation results in 69!/(64!+5!) + 1!/26!/(1!+25!) or 1 in 13,482,621,560

So the expected rate of a winner seems, empirically, to be about one fifth of the calculated odds or about the number entered in the article, 292 million.

The odds for the Powerball jackpot for a single play are $$1 \text{ in } C(69,5) \cdot 26 = 1 \text{ in } 292,201,338$$. If there are 50,000,000 plays per week, the probability of no one winning is $$(1 - 1/292,201,338)^{50,000,000} \approx 84%$$, meaning that the expectation is about 1 winner every 6.35 weeks. To get a winner every 5 weeks, you'd need about 65.2 million plays per week. (This is ignoring the fact that the number of plays is definitely dependent on the amount of time since the last winner though, but you'd need to measure the distribution to get a better stat...)

I got this from my study of the probability of association effects by adding a rings of Saturn variable to a correlation.

... so I agree with beero1000 starting from raw numbers doesn't take into account actual rates of achieving a second hand with the same arrangement which needs inclusion for accounting for number of shufflers and rates of shuffling

What if we presume 100 million folders folding at a rate of one hundred hands per hour. Seems to me the probability of a second hand identical to the first hand becomes a lot more likely. I mean if there are 100 million original hands don't you think one of them would achieve a second identical hand a lot faster than the naked one arrangement of one original hand by an original shuffler?

Did I say that?

I still don't get the title. Shouldn't it be "52!" instead of "52"?

Presumably.

#### fast

##### Contributor
8.066x10^67

4.4x10^17
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?

#### Juma

##### Gone
8.066x10^67

4.4x10^17
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?
Yes, Yes, 8066, 4400, yes, yes.
10x10^n = 1x10^(n+1)
Nuff said.
How come you dont know this?

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?
Yes, Yes, 8066, 4400, yes, yes.
10x10^n = 1x10^(n+1)
Nuff said.
How come you dont know this?

The quality of mathematics and science education at the secondary/primary level is so fractured in the US that large swaths of the population are effectively innumerate.

However, I think fast is just rusty, and probably hasn't had to use this stuff since he learned it a while back. Indeed, he *did* know it, he just wanted to make sure his recollection was accurate.

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?
Yes, Yes, 8066, 4400, yes, yes.
10x10^n = 1x10^(n+1)
Nuff said.
How come you dont know this?

That's a good way to make sure people don't ask questions when they aren't sure about something. Is that something you want to happen?

- - - Updated - - -

8.066x10^67

4.4x10^17
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?

All good.

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
I still don't get the title. Shouldn't it be "52!" instead of "52"?

Yes, that would have been more accurate but less "fantastic" sounding.. hehe.

"deep time" / "large numbers" are interesting to me because it speaks to human incredulity (to evolution, age of universe, etc...)

#### Juma

##### Gone
Yes, Yes, 8066, 4400, yes, yes.
10x10^n = 1x10^(n+1)
Nuff said.
How come you dont know this?

The quality of mathematics and science education at the secondary/primary level is so fractured in the US that large swaths of the population are effectively innumerate.

However, I think fast is just rusty, and probably hasn't had to use this stuff since he learned it a while back. Indeed, he *did* know it, he just wanted to make sure his recollection was accurate.

If you once understood potenses you dont forget that. I was honestly curious how one can go through education without learning it.

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
8.066x10^67

4.4x10^17
I have a few questions, easy questions--just to make sure I'm not mistaken.

Does 8.066x10^67 fall between 10^67 and 10^68?
Does 4.4x10^17 fall between 10^17 and 10^18?

What does 8.066x10^3 and 4.4x10^3 look like long hand? I presume they both fall between 10^3 and 10^4. 8066 and 4400?

This is what the number of seconds since the Big Bang looks like:

440,000,000,000,000,000

Now, add 50 more zeros to the end... that's what the number of possible 52 card decks looks like.

#### fast

##### Contributor
I've always liked math; it's just that compared to you guys, it's not my strong suit.

Anyhow, in spirit of contributing unimaginably large numbers, I thought I'd throw one in the ring for fun:
Hey, might can't do the math, but that don't mean I can't turn it into a word problem

P=1.616 x 10^-35 meters
U=8.798 x 10^23 meters

How big is the universe measured in Planck length?

To illustrate, imagine a very long road; how long? See U above.

Now, imagine placing some very small objects end to end following the entire length of the road. How small? see P above.

Want to know how many objects are on the road? Yeah, me too. But, for a truly unimaginable number, imagine the volume of the largest estimated universe size (less than infinity) measured by how many P's it could theoretically hold unimpeded by laws of physics. Then, treat each of those as done in the factorial OP example. That takes us farther than what can be imagined, and no, you can't add one and prove a point because I still can't imagine two less than adding yet another.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
This is what the number of seconds since the Big Bang looks like:

440,000,000,000,000,000

Now, add 50 more zeros to the end... that's what the number of possible 52 card decks looks like.

If two decks of cards are shuffled randomly and vigorously and both end up in the same order what are the chances of that?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
It has been said that if you shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting arrangement of 52 cards will be unique... in that the odds are extremely high that never in the history of card-shuffling has that particular arrangement of cards ever existed. I thought that was pretty cool, so I looked more into it.

52 factorial, noted as "52!", represents the odds of there being a particular arrangement of 52 randomly ordered items. i.e. (52 x 51 x 50 x 49... x 2 x 1) = 52!

This is a large number. "How large?" is the focus of this.

52! is approximately equal to 8.066x10^67
This assumes if you shuffle a deck you're equally likely to get one arrangement as any other. That isn't the case. Some arrangements are vastly more likely than others, especially when you shuffle a brand new deck for the first time. Assuming you do a riffle shuffle, there are probably only a few million plausible outcomes, because which half of the deck the next card comes from is strongly correlated with which half the last card came from. Since millions of packs of cards are sold, the chances are pretty good that somebody else got the same result as you. (Of course, if you sensibly shuffle it several times you can drive the chance of that down to never in the history of card-shuffling. )

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
This is what the number of seconds since the Big Bang looks like:

440,000,000,000,000,000

Now, add 50 more zeros to the end... that's what the number of possible 52 card decks looks like.

If two decks of cards are shuffled randomly and vigorously and both end up in the same order what are the chances of that?

Stated in the past tense, that is correct. Stated in the future tense, it would be, "The chances of a second deck matching the first is 1/52!"

There are no "chances" of anything happening in the past, unless there is a component of quantum mechanics we as of yet do not understand that creates a future potential for changes to past events... in which case the words "event", and "happened" take on a whole new meaning as to the temporary status of "events".

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
It has been said that if you shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting arrangement of 52 cards will be unique... in that the odds are extremely high that never in the history of card-shuffling has that particular arrangement of cards ever existed. I thought that was pretty cool, so I looked more into it.

52 factorial, noted as "52!", represents the odds of there being a particular arrangement of 52 randomly ordered items. i.e. (52 x 51 x 50 x 49... x 2 x 1) = 52!

This is a large number. "How large?" is the focus of this.

52! is approximately equal to 8.066x10^67
This assumes if you shuffle a deck you're equally likely to get one arrangement as any other. That isn't the case. Some arrangements are vastly more likely than others, especially when you shuffle a brand new deck for the first time. Assuming you do a riffle shuffle, there are probably only a few million plausible outcomes, because which half of the deck the next card comes from is strongly correlated with which half the last card came from. Since millions of packs of cards are sold, the chances are pretty good that somebody else got the same result as you. (Of course, if you sensibly shuffle it several times you can drive the chance of that down to never in the history of card-shuffling. )

For the purposes of this thread (and for being able to model statistics, probability, and other math) we are believing in "pure randomness". I am in agreement with you that, in the real (macro) world, there is no such thing as "random".... for the reasons you state, as an example. In the real world, there is no pure randomness... only "indeterminism". In the world of mathematical models, for fairness, we assume true randomness... like how when we model Newtonian physics, we ignore air resistance for understanding, and then in engineering we correct for it.

#### Peez

##### Member
If two decks of cards are shuffled randomly and vigorously and both end up in the same order what are the chances of that?

Stated in the past tense, that is correct. Stated in the future tense, it would be, "The chances of a second deck matching the first is 1/52!"

There are no "chances" of anything happening in the past, unless there is a component of quantum mechanics we as of yet do not understand that creates a future potential for changes to past events... in which case the words "event", and "happened" take on a whole new meaning as to the temporary status of "events".
One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.

Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.
From The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

#### CJW

##### Member
Nope. At this point, you are not quite 5% there. Repeat all of those steps from the very beginning approximately 250 more times, and you will then have lived long enough to have created every possible arrangement of cards, as long as you arranged them non-stop 1 time every second.

Large numbers are... really large.

Are you missing a decimal? Should that be: "not quite 0.5%" ?

I wonder if there is a way to estimate how many standard 52 card decks have been shuffled since they were first introduced.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
The quality of mathematics and science education at the secondary/primary level is so fractured in the US that large swaths of the population are effectively innumerate.

However, I think fast is just rusty, and probably hasn't had to use this stuff since he learned it a while back. Indeed, he *did* know it, he just wanted to make sure his recollection was accurate.

If you once understood potenses you dont forget that. I was honestly curious how one can go through education without learning it.
Sure you could forget it. Most people could go through their entire lives without using exponents ever again after they pass some exam in secondary school. Regardless, it is clear he did learn it. He just wasn't sure if his recollection was accurate.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
If two decks of cards are shuffled randomly and vigorously and both end up in the same order what are the chances of that?

Stated in the past tense, that is correct. Stated in the future tense, it would be, "The chances of a second deck matching the first is 1/52!"

But these odds are child's play.

What are the odds of any individual being born?

Now those are some high odds.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Every baby born is born an individual. There is not a single human being in the history of the species that is or was not an individual.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Every baby born is born an individual. There is not a single human being in the history of the species that is or was not an individual.

How amazing!!

A child is the meeting of one egg and one sperm.

So first you have the odds of two people getting together and mating. These are incalculable but they are something.

A man produces millions of sperm cells.

Next you have the odds of a specific sperm cell being involved. This is more calculable but it is astronomic.

Then you have to calculate the odds of a specific egg cell being involved.

Not as high as the sperm but huge.

This gives you the odds of one person being born from two particular individuals.

But then you have to calculate in the same odds of these particular people existing and their parents and so on.

All the way back to prehuman ancestors and every organism that HAD to exist for any specific person to exist.

The odds are incalculable but the odds of 52 cards is child's play and very small in comparison.

We all have beaten odds that are unimaginable to be here.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
I've always liked math; it's just that compared to you guys, it's not my strong suit.

Was that an intended pun? The talk is of cards and use mention suit?

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Every baby born is born an individual. There is not a single human being in the history of the species that is or was not an individual.

How amazing!!

A child is the meeting of one egg and one sperm.

So first you have the odds of two people getting together and mating. These are incalculable but they are something.

A man produces millions of sperm cells.

Next you have the odds of a specific sperm cell being involved. This is more calculable but it is astronomic.

Then you have to calculate the odds of a specific egg cell being involved.

Not as high as the sperm but huge.

This gives you the odds of one person being born from two particular individuals.

But then you have to calculate in the same odds of these particular people existing and their parents and so on.

All the way back to prehuman ancestors and every organism that HAD to exist for any specific person to exist.

The odds are incalculable but the odds of 52 cards is child's play and very small in comparison.

We all have beaten odds that are unimaginable to be here.

What you said and what I responded to was; ''What are the odds of any individual being born?''

So you are now shifting the focus from the fact existence to the statistical unlikelihood of the existence of life and the human species. That anything exists may seem unlikely because we don't have the necessary information to determine if it is likely or not, the existence of anything may be unlikely or not, we don't know, however here we are, we exist. And because we exist, we breed and procreate and by necessity of the very conditions of life and our existence every child that is born must necessarily be an individual.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
Nope. At this point, you are not quite 5% there. Repeat all of those steps from the very beginning approximately 250 more times, and you will then have lived long enough to have created every possible arrangement of cards, as long as you arranged them non-stop 1 time every second.

.

This seems wrong. If your are 5% there, then only 20 more cycles are needed to get 100% there, correct?
So, is the 5% wrong. Should it be .004% ?

(but otherwise a fun illustration)

#### fast

##### Contributor
I've always liked math; it's just that compared to you guys, it's not my strong suit.

Was that an intended pun? The talk is of cards and use mention suit?
If I told ya, I'd have to deck ya

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
fast said:
I've always liked math; it's just that compared to you guys, it's not my strong suit.

Was that an intended pun? The talk is of cards and use mention suit?
If I told ya, I'd have to deck ya
Oh, you're such a card!

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
How amazing!!

A child is the meeting of one egg and one sperm.

So first you have the odds of two people getting together and mating. These are incalculable but they are something.

A man produces millions of sperm cells.

Next you have the odds of a specific sperm cell being involved. This is more calculable but it is astronomic.

Then you have to calculate the odds of a specific egg cell being involved.

Not as high as the sperm but huge.

This gives you the odds of one person being born from two particular individuals.

But then you have to calculate in the same odds of these particular people existing and their parents and so on.

All the way back to prehuman ancestors and every organism that HAD to exist for any specific person to exist.

The odds are incalculable but the odds of 52 cards is child's play and very small in comparison.

We all have beaten odds that are unimaginable to be here.

What you said and what I responded to was; ''What are the odds of any individual being born?''

So you are now shifting the focus from the fact existence to the statistical unlikelihood of the existence of life and the human species. That anything exists may seem unlikely because we don't have the necessary information to determine if it is likely or not, the existence of anything may be unlikely or not, we don't know, however here we are, we exist. And because we exist, we breed and procreate and by necessity of the very conditions of life and our existence every child that is born must necessarily be an individual.

No shift.

That is a discussion of the astronomical unfathomable odds for any individual to be born.

That you can't see it is telling.

The odds of being born makes the odds of some deck of cards look like a safe bet.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
What you said and what I responded to was; ''What are the odds of any individual being born?''

So you are now shifting the focus from the fact existence to the statistical unlikelihood of the existence of life and the human species. That anything exists may seem unlikely because we don't have the necessary information to determine if it is likely or not, the existence of anything may be unlikely or not, we don't know, however here we are, we exist. And because we exist, we breed and procreate and by necessity of the very conditions of life and our existence every child that is born must necessarily be an individual.

No shift.

That is a discussion of the astronomical unfathomable odds for any individual to be born.

That you can't see it is telling.

The odds of being born makes the odds of some deck of cards look like a safe bet.

Individuals emerge from existing conditions, however improbable. Once established - being probability realized however unlikely - the system, life, animals, plants,humankind, works as it does and does what it does and every baby that is born is necessarily an individual.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
No shift.

That is a discussion of the astronomical unfathomable odds for any individual to be born.

That you can't see it is telling.

The odds of being born makes the odds of some deck of cards look like a safe bet.

Individuals emerge from existing conditions, however improbable. Once established - being probability realized however unlikely - the system, life, animals, plants,humankind, works as it does and does what it does and every baby that is born is necessarily an individual.

No, humans do not "emerge".

They result from the combination of one sperm and one egg meeting at the right place.

The odds of that one sperm meeting that one egg are astronomical.

Then when you include every single organism that HAD to exist for that sperm and egg to exist the odds are too large to fit this page.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Individuals emerge from existing conditions, however improbable. Once established - being probability realized however unlikely - the system, life, animals, plants,humankind, works as it does and does what it does and every baby that is born is necessarily an individual.

No, humans do not "emerge".

They result from the combination of one sperm and one egg meeting at the right place.

The odds of that one sperm meeting that one egg are astronomical.

Then when you include every single organism that HAD to exist for that sperm and egg to exist the odds are too large to fit this page.

My use of ''emerge'' was rhetorical and in no way meant to exclude the process and mechanisms of procreation. ''Emerge'' was not meant to represent spontaneous emergence....which should have been clear given the context of my post.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
No, humans do not "emerge".

They result from the combination of one sperm and one egg meeting at the right place.

The odds of that one sperm meeting that one egg are astronomical.

Then when you include every single organism that HAD to exist for that sperm and egg to exist the odds are too large to fit this page.

My use of ''emerge'' was rhetorical and in no way meant to exclude the process and mechanisms of procreation. ''Emerge'' was not meant to represent spontaneous emergence....which should have been clear given the context of my post.

I notice you said nothing of any substance.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
My use of ''emerge'' was rhetorical and in no way meant to exclude the process and mechanisms of procreation. ''Emerge'' was not meant to represent spontaneous emergence....which should have been clear given the context of my post.

I notice you said nothing of any substance.

I notice that your response is unsurprising and predictable. Just another example of assertion, dismissal and denial. Dismiss whatever your opponent happens to say that disagrees with your beliefs, which is pretty much everything, and likewise deny the validity of anything that is said.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
I notice you said nothing of any substance.

I notice that your response is unsurprising and predictable. Just another example of assertion, dismissal and denial. Dismiss whatever your opponent happens to say that disagrees with your beliefs, which is pretty much everything, and likewise deny the validity of anything that is said.

You are not an opponent.

You are a punching bag.

#### fast

##### Contributor
I notice that your response is unsurprising and predictable. Just another example of assertion, dismissal and denial. Dismiss whatever your opponent happens to say that disagrees with your beliefs, which is pretty much everything, and likewise deny the validity of anything that is said.

You are not an opponent.

You are a punching bag.

That sounds like a fortune cookie

#### DBT

##### Contributor
I notice that your response is unsurprising and predictable. Just another example of assertion, dismissal and denial. Dismiss whatever your opponent happens to say that disagrees with your beliefs, which is pretty much everything, and likewise deny the validity of anything that is said.

You are not an opponent.

You are a punching bag.

You are a legend in your own mind. A poster who only has opponents, who patiently try to help you to understand the basics of logic, neuroscience, etc, but are fighting a losing battle against someone who appears incapable of understanding.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
You are not an opponent.

You are a punching bag.

You are a legend in your own mind. A poster who only has opponents, who patiently try to help you to understand the basics of logic, neuroscience, etc, but are fighting a losing battle against someone who appears incapable of understanding.

Give me a break.

I am somebody that disagree with you on a few things.

Stop being so melodramatic.

None of this here is more than mental exercise. None of it means anything.

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
Nope. At this point, you are not quite 5% there. Repeat all of those steps from the very beginning approximately 250 more times, and you will then have lived long enough to have created every possible arrangement of cards, as long as you arranged them non-stop 1 time every second.

Large numbers are... really large.

Are you missing a decimal? Should that be: "not quite 0.5%" ?

I wonder if there is a way to estimate how many standard 52 card decks have been shuffled since they were first introduced.

You and 1 other noticed my error... yes, 0.5%, not 5%.

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
None of this here is more than mental exercise. None of it means anything.

hey now... I take exception to that. Well, it certainly is a mental exercise... but it is meaningful... very meaningful, if you know what to do with it.

Ever try to explain Deep Time to an incredulous science-denier? These "visualization tools" may be very useful. It's also a nice way to show how seemingly "large" probabilities (like of "life" arising) are not very large, as compared to something very familiar, like the order of a deck of cards.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
None of this here is more than mental exercise. None of it means anything.

hey now... I take exception to that. Well, it certainly is a mental exercise... but it is meaningful... very meaningful, if you know what to do with it.

Ever try to explain Deep Time to an incredulous science-denier? These "visualization tools" may be very useful. It's also a nice way to show how seemingly "large" probabilities (like of "life" arising) are not very large, as compared to something very familiar, like the order of a deck of cards.

You are saying the mental exercise has a use.

But if you're dealing with a full grown science-denier there may be no meaning to the exercise.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
hey now... I take exception to that. Well, it certainly is a mental exercise... but it is meaningful... very meaningful, if you know what to do with it.

Ever try to explain Deep Time to an incredulous science-denier? These "visualization tools" may be very useful. It's also a nice way to show how seemingly "large" probabilities (like of "life" arising) are not very large, as compared to something very familiar, like the order of a deck of cards.

You are saying the mental exercise has a use.

But if you're dealing with a full grown science-denier there may be no meaning to the exercise.

He is. But not everyone shares your denialist stance, so there remains meaning even though you are immune to it.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
You are saying the mental exercise has a use.

But if you're dealing with a full grown science-denier there may be no meaning to the exercise.

He is. But not everyone shares your denialist stance, so there remains meaning even though you are immune to it.

You confuse denying the claims of a few with denying science.

Skepticism of flimsy claims that can't be supported is rational.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
He is. But not everyone shares your denialist stance, so there remains meaning even though you are immune to it.

You confuse denying the claims of a few with denying science.

Skepticism of flimsy claims that can't be supported is rational.

Denial is not skepticism. Dictatorial claims about reality, presented without evidence, are valueless - and anyone who says otherwise is WRONG.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
You confuse denying the claims of a few with denying science.

Skepticism of flimsy claims that can't be supported is rational.

Denial is not skepticism. Dictatorial claims about reality, presented without evidence, are valueless - and anyone who says otherwise is WRONG.

Strawman.

Many concepts have necessities contained within them.

Like the concept of "experience". It requires both something that can experience and things it is capable of experiencing.

Pointing that out is just pointing out what everybody knows already about experience. Calling it a dictatorial claim is ridiculous.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
You are a legend in your own mind. A poster who only has opponents, who patiently try to help you to understand the basics of logic, neuroscience, etc, but are fighting a losing battle against someone who appears incapable of understanding.

Give me a break.

I am somebody that disagree with you on a few things.

Stop being so melodramatic.

None of this here is more than mental exercise. None of it means anything.

You conflate melodrama with your untenable claims getting a good solid hiding while pretending it's melodrama in a futile attempt to save face.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
You conflate melodrama with your untenable claims getting a good solid hiding while pretending it's melodrama in a futile attempt to save face.

There is no real understanding of brain activity.

If a cell is a tiny switch in some computer like computational device you have to somehow go from electrical switch to conscious experience.

Nobody can do that.

But this is a thread about the incredibly high number of possible shuffles in a deck of cards.

People look at the brain and they see an incredibly high number of possible directions an impulse could take. But the direction of the impulse must be highly controlled for something like vision to arise.

What exactly is creating that control is unknown.

We know we have conscious experience. We know there is brain activity.

We have nothing to connect the two.

#### Malintent

##### Veteran Member
You conflate melodrama with your untenable claims getting a good solid hiding while pretending it's melodrama in a futile attempt to save face.

There is no real understanding of brain activity.

If a cell is a tiny switch in some computer like computational device you have to somehow go from electrical switch to conscious experience.

Nobody can do that.

But this is a thread about the incredibly high number of possible shuffles in a deck of cards.

People look at the brain and they see an incredibly high number of possible directions an impulse could take. But the direction of the impulse must be highly controlled for something like vision to arise.

What exactly is creating that control is unknown.

We know we have conscious experience. We know there is brain activity.

We have nothing to connect the two.

We certainly have large gaps of knowledge in that area. however it is silly to say we "have nothing".

We have understanding of chemistry, and the knowledge that it is not a random process
We have knowledge of electromagnetism, and the knowledge of how information can be rapidly transmitted
We have knowledge of cells and their biochemistry, and know they are not "simple switches" by any means.

We don't know everything, but we know far more than nothing.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
We know we have conscious experience. We know there is brain activity.

We have nothing to connect the two.

We certainly have large gaps of knowledge in that area. however it is silly to say we "have nothing".

We have understanding of chemistry, and the knowledge that it is not a random process
We have knowledge of electromagnetism, and the knowledge of how information can be rapidly transmitted
We have knowledge of cells and their biochemistry, and know they are not "simple switches" by any means.

We don't know everything, but we know far more than nothing.

We understand electricity and magnetism greatly but cannot use them to create something with a consciousness.

We wouldn't even know where to begin to do something like that.

We have no conception how something like consciousness could arise from the activity of cells.

As far as the generation of consciousness from brain cells:

We know nothing.