infinite monkey theorem

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But its a good try to avoid the entire topic under discussion - I'm still waiting for any proof that a monkey can type the entire volume of Shakespeare randomly? I say prove it - get some monkeys and get them to typing.

You don't think they would succeed . . . . even given an eternity of typing?

 

[joshua 1 9]

In other words you need to twist the words to mean something entirely different from what is actually written?. Sounds like a bait and switch scam to me. But then all religions do that when human progress outstrips their holy books.

And the adultery story was apparently a popular meme of the time that was incorporated into John at a much later date because it sounded good. Interesting don't you think.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.php
http://stakepresident.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/woman-taken-in-adultery-authentic-or.html

Strike two, one more insult and your out of the game.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So where is the crime deserving of stoning

Everyone has sinned and everyone is guilty & deserves to be stoned to death for their sin. Jesus is the only one that was without sin. No one deserves a second chance at life. But God so loves the world that He is going to do all He can to save and to redeem the world and to save the Human Kind. So he created time and we have time to repent and turn away from sin. Some people are going to make good use of the time they are given and some people will not be interested in God's offer to them.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Joshua.

Your thread title contains perhaps two words that seem difficult to understand.

Here is what you wrote.

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter
keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete
works of William Shakespeare.

Firstly, the meaning of the word 'random' used above, a random event would be an event. That
displays no inherent, discernable, order or pattern.

Has there ever been an instance of a random event occurring in time and space?

Let's assume that a random event did occur in time and space, how would we ever test or
even know of this occurrence? People use the word 'random' loosely, even science often
mishandles the word often. Mankind probably will never know whether any event, is a random
event or not. That would require absolute knowledge which we do not have.

Since in time and space, all events are influnced by previous events. There does seem to be a form
of determinism occurring within our universe. Logically, if there was a first cause outside of space
and time, then that first cause itself should be well beyond the empirical, human understanding.

Secondly, the meaning of 'infinite', limitless or endless in time and space, or beyond time and space.
Impossible to measure or calculate.

Not sure if you noticed that 'infinite' is impossible to measure. If the 'infinite' cannot be measured,
then the concept of the 'infinite' is well beyond an empirical, human understanding.

Joshua, how about we rewrite your 'infinite monkey theorem'.

"The finite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting the keys, approaching a random sequence.
On a keyboard for a time duration, approaching but never reaching, an infinite duration of time.
Will type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."

If the monkey did type the complete works of William Shakespeare, in some time duration approaching
an infinite time, then the debate would really heat up. If the monkey typed Macbeth for example, would
that actually mean anything in the end?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hello Joshua.

Your thread title contains perhaps two words that seem difficult to understand.

Here is what you wrote.



Firstly, the meaning of the word 'random' used above, a random event would be an event. That
displays no inherent, discernable, order or pattern.

Has there ever been an instance of a random event occurring in time and space?

Let's assume that a random event did occur in time and space, how would we ever test or
even know of this occurrence? People use the word 'random' loosely, even science often
mishandles the word often. Mankind probably will never know whether any event, is a random
event or not. That would require absolute knowledge which we do not have.

Since in time and space, all events are influnced by previous events. There does seem to be a form
of determinism occurring within our universe. Logically, if there was a first cause outside of space
and time, then that first cause itself should be well beyond the empirical, human understanding.

Secondly, the meaning of 'infinite', limitless or endless in time and space, or beyond time and space.
Impossible to measure or calculate.

Not sure if you noticed that 'infinite' is impossible to measure. If the 'infinite' cannot be measured,
then the concept of the 'infinite' is well beyond an empirical, human understanding.

Joshua, how about we rewrite your 'infinite monkey theorem'.

"The finite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting the keys, approaching a random sequence.
On a keyboard for a time duration, approaching but never reaching, an infinite duration of time.
Will type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."

If the monkey did type the complete works of William Shakespeare, in some time duration approaching
an infinite time, then the debate would really heat up. If the monkey typed Macbeth for example, would
that actually mean anything in the end?

It really does not matter because we do not have an infinity. We have a very finite amount of time. That of course is the point that the random theory only works when you have a lot of time. That is why Darwin needed gradualism in order to get his evolution theory to work. Only it turns out that biological change takes place in short periods of time and so we now have Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello Joshua.

Your thread title contains perhaps two words that seem difficult to understand.

Here is what you wrote.



Firstly, the meaning of the word 'random' used above, a random event would be an event. That
displays no inherent, discernable, order or pattern.

Has there ever been an instance of a random event occurring in time and space?

There are events that are simply beyond any reasonable method of prediction, such as the result of a coin toss or the timing of a particular radioactive decay detection or the arrival of the next cosmic ray.

Let's assume that a random event did occur in time and space, how would we ever test or
even know of this occurrence? People use the word 'random' loosely, even science often
mishandles the word often. Mankind probably will never know whether any event, is a random
event or not. That would require absolute knowledge which we do not have.

But its easy enough to construct a random number generator that would suffice for the experiment. The impossibility of the experiment lies, rather, in the inability to sustain it for long enough to produce the results.

Since in time and space, all events are influnced by previous events. There does seem to be a form
of determinism occurring within our universe. Logically, if there was a first cause outside of space
and time, then that first cause itself should be well beyond the empirical, human understanding.

Present understanding of quantum mechanical events is that the results are truly indeterminant . . . that is, alternate outcomes can occur for identical inputs.

Secondly, the meaning of 'infinite', limitless or endless in time and space, or beyond time and space.
Impossible to measure or calculate.

The meaning of infinite is perfectly clear. Of course, we cannot actually implement an infinity.

Joshua, how about we rewrite your 'infinite monkey theorem'.

"The finite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting the keys, approaching a random sequence.
On a keyboard for a time duration, approaching but never reaching, an infinite duration of time.
Will type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."

It would be wrong to say the monkey ever approaches an infinite duration of time. No matter how long you let the team of monkeys type . . . they only type a finite time, and the time remaining is, conceivably, still just as far away from reaching that end.

If the monkey did type the complete works of William Shakespeare, in some time duration approaching
an infinite time, then the debate would really heat up. If the monkey typed Macbeth for example, would
that actually mean anything in the end?

It wouldn't mean a thing. It would be inevitable, but meaningless. The only benefit from contemplating the experiment is to clarify one's thinking about time and infinity.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Strike two, one more insult and your out of the game.

Pretty sure I haven''t insulted anyone - but if you want to take it that way ....go for it

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Everyone has sinned and everyone is guilty & deserves to be stoned to death for their sin. Jesus is the only one that was without sin. No one deserves a second chance at life. But God so loves the world that He is going to do all He can to save and to redeem the world and to save the Human Kind. So he created time and we have time to repent and turn away from sin. Some people are going to make good use of the time they are given and some people will not be interested in God's offer to them.

Some people refuse to accept time in their own expanding and accelerating universe they believe in. For in a universe undergoing constant acceleration - in a physics where acceleration causes clocks to slow - then time went faster as one goes backwards in time. So that it appears to be of great age in but a moment of today's time.

But of course they refuse to apply their cosmological beliefs to the universe (just to imaginary twins in spaceships) - if it means they actually have to follow their beliefs and apply it to the question of the age of the universe. For if clocks slow under acceleration - and the entire universe is undergoing an increasing acceleration - then clocks must speed up as one goes backwards in time, necessitating increased decay rates to match. Exponentially since the acceleration began faster than c to begin with - so that a million years in the past would be but a small portion as read by today's clocks - which are now slower in this universe that continues to accelerate...

The science is beyond question - they just now refuse to follow the science.

http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/time.html

So when twins in spaceships accelerate - it's ok to apply the science - but when it is we ourselves that are accelerating - why - they refuse to apply their own beliefs to the problem at hand. All so they can keep their Fairie Dust of the question of the passage of time untouched.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But its easy enough to construct a random number generator that would suffice for the experiment. The impossibility of the experiment lies, rather, in the inability to sustain it for long enough to produce the results.

No, the impossibility lies in the fact that you believe that a number generator relying on precise mathematical calculations - is actually random. It may to an observer "appear" random, but we know that beneath the surface it is all precise mathematical relationships that derive the next number to be chosen - nothing random occurred at all. Our limited perceptions are just unable to perceive the underlying mathematical relationships the computer is using.

And with billions of calculations per second - your claims of sustainability are also void. The computer could produce a billion years worth of results in but a moment of time. 5 years should suffice to total the entire age of the universe twice over at a minimum - according to you that is and your flawed time keeping.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Strike two, one more insult and your out of the game.

Wut? What insult??? :-O

 

[quatona]

Wut? What insult??? :-O

Maybe you quoted one of his posts?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, the impossibility lies in the fact that you believe that a number generator relying on precise mathematical calculations - is actually random. It may to an observer "appear" random, but we know that beneath the surface it is all precise mathematical relationships that derive the next number to be chosen - nothing random occurred at all. Our limited perceptions are just unable to perceive the underlying mathematical relationships the computer is using.

This objection does nothing to change the estimates about how long a program would have to run to produce from a random number generator a complete work of Shakespeare.

And with billions of calculations per second - your claims of sustainability are also void. The computer could produce a billion years worth of results in but a moment of time. 5 years should suffice to total the entire age of the universe twice over at a minimum - according to you that is and your flawed time keeping.

I made no claims of sustainability.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some people refuse to accept time in their own expanding and accelerating universe they believe in. For in a universe undergoing constant acceleration - in a physics where acceleration causes clocks to slow - then time went faster as one goes backwards in time. So that it appears to be of great age in but a moment of today's time.

As long as you stay in the same frame of reference, the clock never slows or speeds up. You only see a difference in clocks between frames of reference. I don't know why you insist on being wrong about this.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This objection does nothing to change the estimates about how long a program would have to run to produce from a random number generator a complete work of Shakespeare.

A number large enough to be considered as all but impossible in mathematics. And still has nothing to do with the fact that there is nothing random about a random number generator. It actually takes intelligence to make one that appears random. That's the point. What appears random to you in physics - has nothing to do with randomness. But is based upon mathematical principles we can not yet understand or perceive with our limited technology...

I made no claims of sustainability.

Except you did.

QUOTE="Paul of Eugene OR, post: 68654281, member: 352382" But its easy enough to construct a random number generator that would suffice for the experiment. The impossibility of the experiment lies, rather, in the inability to sustain it for long enough to produce the results. {emph. mine}

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, earlier: "I made no claims of sustainability."

except you did.

But its easy enough to construct a random number generator that would suffice for the experiment. The impossibility of the experiment lies, rather, in the inability to sustain it for long enough to produce the results. {emph. mine}

I'm sorry, if you say I've claimed sustainability is possible due to this quote, you just don't bother to read for comprehension. This makes discussing things with you rather iffy.

 

[loveofourlord]

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The chance of this happening is one in 10:500. So there would be 500 zeros. If this were the case then there would be many many many failed attempts. What happened to all the failed attempts at making a universe? Are they in the failed attempt bucket in the sky somewhere? The universe is filled with natural laws that makes it all work and nothing seems to be a failed attempt, at least on that level. Nothing failed until self awareness came along. Then people began to question if there is a God then how could he make such a mess. Even though they do not believe in God they feel this God that they do not believe in made a mess out of the universe that He created. But the same people feel that random process is doing a fine job of creation and does not make a mess at all or if it does it cleans up after itself. Still with so many failed attempts then the mess to clean up must be huge.

we can't see beyond this universe so how can we say there arn't a infinite number of universes out there failing and suceeding, we know god made the universe, but I'm leery about any attempt to say this is definetly how god did it.

And of course all natural laws work, no one would be there to say so if they were too different. thats like saying, "If life started on pluto it wouldn't survive." well yeah, life started on this planet because the right criteria is met for it to survive. If the crteria didn't get mt, it be a different planet elsewhere we be living on, or maybe a different universe. So many things we don't know about .

 

[loveofourlord]

That monkey thing always gets me. I can just imagine a version that is all complete except the last monkey hits a "g" instead of a "q". "To be or not to be: that is the guestion." Rats we have to start all over! So they begin again...kei9nklerioadeok dfkdpki34895mv...

 

[loveofourlord]

That is the whole point the universe would or should be filled with failed attempts so that there would be no room for the one successful attempt that they say finally comes along. 95 percent of all life is now extinct and there is a vast record of that. Yet no record of failed attempts at life. Even if you JUST look at protein and what would be involved to create just one of the many proteins using the random theory.

Even the multi verse theory says there would be a huge number of failed universes that did not manage to get all the natural laws right. Because the random theory would require that to be trial and error also.

well thing is life only needs one time to suceed, and you know what sucessful life could call failed life? Food, there could be a billion abiogenesis's a day on the planet, but they become food as soon as anything gets near it, we have 3-4 places in this solar system that might have life, if even just one of them does, it shows that life can appear. For all we know universes are like life we still have to wait till we die, or can find a way to see past our universe.