infinite monkey theorem

[joshua 1 9]

What would a failed attempt look like? How might we observe it? How might we test and measure it?

I already answered that in the post about the Delia Plants. The failed attempts can still grow but eventually they will be eliminated because of their lack of strength due to their imperfection and the greater resistance they face in a universe that Darwin says is evolving.

 

[Oafman]

I already answered that in the post about the Delia Plants. The failed attempts can still grow but eventually they will be eliminated because of their lack of strength due to their imperfection and the greater resistance they face in a universe that Darwin says is evolving.

OK. But that doesn't answer my question. How might we observe, measure and test these failed attempts to determine whether or not your assertion is accurate?

And Darwin said nothing about the universe. Or at least, nothing worth listening to. Compared to what we now know, people in Darwin's time had no clue about the universe. The ToE only explains the diversity of life on Earth, nothing more.

 

[ecco]

Gerald Schroeder. But I am reading his most recent book so you may not find to much about it on the internet.

http://geraldschroeder.com/

Actually, there is. There is an in-depth critique of three of Schroeder's books. It's a long read, but very worthwhile.

Joshua, why don't you take the time to read it and gain some perspective.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

 

[joshua 1 9]

OK. But that doesn't answer my question. How might we observe, measure and test these failed attempts to determine whether or not your assertion is accurate?

And Darwin said nothing about the universe. Or at least, nothing worth listening to. Compared to what we now know, people in Darwin's time had no clue about the universe. The ToE only explains the diversity of life on Earth, nothing more.

I let Dr Gerald Schroeder do the math. He has a Phd from MIT so he is a lot more qualified then I am. The theory itself is most recently attributed to Stephen Hawking. So you can let him define it. As I said the random theory itself goes back to Aristotle. Even a lot of Darwin theory goes back 2500 years. But they do not talk about that very much.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Actually, there is. There is an in-depth critique of three of Schroeder's books. It's a long read, but very worthwhile.

The review does not cover his most recent book. Schroeder is unique in that he is a accomplished Kabbalist. He feels this allows him to be privileged to study the hidden knowledge of God that the average everyday Joe does not have access to. This goes back to Moses Maimonides. This is said to be the hidden knowledge that was first given to Adam, Abraham and Moses. So we have the Bible, the wisdom in creation itself and the oral tradition goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Schroeder believes that to understand the Bible you have to understand Science. This was a strong tradition in Darwin's day and even Darwin learned the Bible and Science together. Most mainline denominations require a college degree before you are even qualified to go to Seminary.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hmmm...clearly you and I have significantly different ideas of what constitutes science, Joshua.


I therefore conclude that I cannot help answer your question about 'failed attempts'.


Thank you,

E.I.

 

[ecco]

The review does not cover his most recent book.

Did you review the critique? His criticisms of Schroeder's works are valid, especially his criticisms of Schroeder's application of science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did you review the critique? His criticisms of Schroeder's works are valid, especially his criticisms of Schroeder's application of science.

He talks about Schroeder and his conclusion is: "Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't." Mostly he just explains some of what is in Schroeder's books which I am already familiar with. Mostly I am interested in Schroeder's study of the Kubbalist writers and the impact they have had on Science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hmmm...clearly you and I have significantly different ideas of what constitutes science, Joshua.

We are talking about physics and in that regard there is classic physics and quantum physics. I remember one friend of mine that was working on his Phd in classic physics and when I tried to talk to him about quantum physics he did not know anything about it and he did not want to know anything about it. Yet if you know anything at all about PBS they have a lot of programs that talk about Quantum physics. So it tends to be a popular subject in the media even if people who study classic physics are very uncomfortable with it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

OK. But that doesn't answer my question. How might we observe, measure and test these failed attempts to determine whether or not your assertion is accurate?

In this case that would be up to the dahlia plant society to determine. Of course we are talking about selective breeding and not natural selection. I do not need to tell you how natural selection works to determine what are failed attempts and what are successful.

The bottom line is the math. Based on the number of failed attempts the theory just does not work. The math does not allow for it. This has been shown by the people that are very advanced in math and able to show that the numbers just do not come out the way they would need to for the theory to work. The people that support the theory simply do not understand math well enough to know how impossible it is for evolution to work on the macro level.

The universe was clearly not created through a random process. This could be a part of the fine tuning but not the creation process itself. Perhaps evolutionists do not grasp how absurd the notion is of creation resulting from a random process. Oh I know they say selection is not a random process but the selections they claim are randomly produced and that is simply mathematically impossible if they want to accept that or if they want to continue in their delusion.

Math has to have integrity. The IRS knows when people lie on their taxes, the computer spits it right out because there is no integrity. Make up numbers are just not the same as real math and real numbers. In the same way they try to force the numbers to get their theory to work but the numbers just do not support their theory when it comes to macro evolution. Of course no one has any problems with micro evolution and that is not the issue here.

Some people try to take a leap of faith from micro to macro but it is not faith, it is just hype. Irregardless if Steve buys into it lock stock and barrel or not. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[Armoured]

Oh come on, probably my best Simpsons reference ever, and no likes??

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

There are alternate ways in which infinity for creation might be achieved, and for one to be true does not rule out for the other to be true.

First of all, the universe might extend forever in all directions instead of being finite. This is easy to understand at this time, but it makes the origin of the universe conceptually difficult. Conceptually, its easier to think of the unverse beginning and continuing as the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. But this requires the universe to be finite, however great that might be in our case.

But if our universe began and remains finite though great, perhaps there are other universes that are unconnected to ours that are also finite though great. Presumably each universe could house monkeys typing away at random until one of them, somewhere in some alternate universe, achieves the works of Shakespeare.

Or we could use computers outputting tables of random numbers, and one of them accidentally recreated the works of Shakespeare doing that. Probably happens more often than teams of monkeys in the alternate universes.

Finally, we should mention the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. According to this view, every time there is an alternate way for a quantum mechanical transition to occur, it occurs both ways, with the universe splitting into alternate universes to accomodate that happening. This would mean we have plenty of universes in which teams of monkeys typed up the works of Shakespeare.

But in any case, we'll never find them. The successful printouts that were randomly generated would be so very far apart that locating one would be an impossible task for any conceivable finite entity. We can only contemplate that such a thing does exist, somewhere, but we'll never see it.

But perhaps we don't even need to think about alternate universes. How about the infinite digits that express the square root of 2? If we look far enough into those digits, somewhere, we'll have the exact expression of the ascii printout of Shakespeare's works.

Don't expect to get there with a human created computer.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There are alternate ways in which infinity for creation might be achieved, and for one to be true does not rule out for the other to be true.

First of all, the universe might extend forever in all directions instead of being finite. This is easy to understand at this time, but it makes the origin of the universe conceptually difficult. Conceptually, its easier to think of the unverse beginning and continuing as the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. But this requires the universe to be finite, however great that might be in our case.

But if our universe began and remains finite though great, perhaps there are other universes that are unconnected to ours that are also finite though great. Presumably each universe could house monkeys typing away at random until one of them, somewhere in some alternate universe, achieves the works of Shakespeare.

Or we could use computers outputting tables of random numbers, and one of them accidentally recreated the works of Shakespeare doing that. Probably happens more often than teams of monkeys in the alternate universes.

Finally, we should mention the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. According to this view, every time there is an alternate way for a quantum mechanical transition to occur, it occurs both ways, with the universe splitting into alternate universes to accomodate that happening. This would mean we have plenty of universes in which teams of monkeys typed up the works of Shakespeare.

But in any case, we'll never find them. The successful printouts that were randomly generated would be so very far apart that locating one would be an impossible task for any conceivable finite entity. We can only contemplate that such a thing does exist, somewhere, but we'll never see it.

But perhaps we don't even need to think about alternate universes. How about the infinite digits that express the square root of 2? If we look far enough into those digits, somewhere, we'll have the exact expression of the ascii printout of Shakespeare's works.

Don't expect to get there with a human created computer.

That is really the whole point, the random theory requires an infinite number of universes with a infinite number of possibilities for one of them to get all the natural laws right. But according to Schroeder the math is just not possible to create that though a random process. Fred Hoyle in his now out of date book came to the same conclusion. The math does not support the theory.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is really the whole point, the random theory requires an infinite number of universes with a infinite number of possibilities for one of them to get all the natural laws right. But according to Schroeder the math is just not possible to create that though a random process. Fred Hoyle in his now out of date book came to the same conclusion. The math does not support the theory.

Yes, if the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is not true, and if the universe is merely great but not infinite, and if there are no other universes, then . . . Shakespeare is probably not recreated by accident. But Shakespeare will still be found, somewhere, in the decimal expansion of the digits of the square root of two.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, if the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is not true, and if the universe is merely great but not infinite, and if there are no other universes, then . . . Shakespeare is probably not recreated by accident. But Shakespeare will still be found, somewhere, in the decimal expansion of the digits of the square root of two.

Yet I have not seen anything generated by a random process. Not even one word, much less a whole book or a whole universe. You can not very well project this into a macro theory when you can not even get it to work on a micro level. Forget the monkey what can a computer do sense they have the speed to go through a huge number of random events to see if anything of any value at all is generated.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yet I have not seen anything generated by a random process. Not even one word, much less a whole book or a whole universe. You can not very well project this into a macro theory when you can not even get it to work on a micro level. Forget the monkey what can a computer do sense they have the speed to go through a huge number of random events to see if anything of any value at all is generated.

But even the great speed of a computer is not sufficient to find something so rare.

Hey, I can create a program that will print out the works of Shakespeare without fail, and it won't even depend on random numbers. Simply start with a string of characters, aaaa . . . aaa long enough to fill a page. Print it. Then print aaaa....aab and print it. And so on, until every possible combination of letters, numbers, spaces has been placed on the last page of the printout. Somewhere in that vast printout will be every page of all the works of Shakespeare. Of course, they won't be next to each other, I leave it to you to find them and put them together.

Of course, you have to run the program long enough to finish the task, and keep supplying adequate paper. A mere technicality, of course.

It will achieve the works of Shakespeare faster than the team of monkeys next door, because its not random, its direct.

 

[jacks]

Paul I know Eugene is pretty laid back, but I'd be concerned about that "team of monkeys next door"...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul I know Eugene is pretty laid back, but I'd be concerned about that "team of monkeys next door"...

Well, so far, the application for funding hasn't come through.

 

[ecco]

He talks about Schroeder and his conclusion is: "Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't."

That is not his conclusion of Schroeder's works. It is a statement regarding just one small portion of it. The way you chose to take that comment out of context shows that you will believe anything Schroeder says and ignore any critiques.

Here is the comment, in context (my emphasis):
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

At the moment of Adam's creation, God chose to switch to the post-Adam frame of reference, which then became the same for God and men. What had been only six days in the pre-Adam frame of reference, in the new frame of reference common for both the Creator and the creation, would become billions of years. That is what Schroeder tells us.

Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't.

Schroeder's explanation requires a leap of faith. It is fine as long as it is not suggested to be an explanation based on science. There is nothing scientific in the notion that God's frame of reference may be vastly different from men's frame of reference. As far as faith is considered, the above assertion is not a new one, and is simply beyond any discussion in rational, scientific terms. Schroeder, though, wants readers to believe that the described explanation is somehow based on the theory of relativity. It is not.​

Mostly he just explains some of what is in Schroeder's books which I am already familiar with.

Wrong again. Mostly he critiques Schroeder's ignorance of science, sloppiness of writing and pandering ("Schroeder, though, wants readers to believe").

Mostly I am interested in Schroeder's study of the Kubbalist writers and the impact they have had on Science.

Thus far it looks like Schroeder's impact on science is rejection.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/reply_to_Schroeder.cfm (my emphasis)

Until Schroeder provides some reasonable answers to my critique, my assertions regarding his errors, amazing for a PhD in physics, remain in force and Schroeder's output, for all its popularity among gullible readers, has to be construed as pseudo-scientific piffle.​

 

[joshua 1 9]

But even the great speed of a computer is not sufficient to find something so rare.

Hey, I can create a program that will print out the works of Shakespeare without fail, and it won't even depend on random numbers. Simply start with a string of characters, aaaa . . . aaa long enough to fill a page. Print it. Then print aaaa....aab and print it. And so on, until every possible combination of letters, numbers, spaces has been placed on the last page of the printout. Somewhere in that vast printout will be every page of all the works of Shakespeare. Of course, they won't be next to each other, I leave it to you to find them and put them together.

Of course, you have to run the program long enough to finish the task, and keep supplying adequate paper. A mere technicality, of course.

It will achieve the works of Shakespeare faster than the team of monkeys next door, because its not random, its direct.

That is what Schroeder did was work out the math for doing it just like that. There are 50 keys on the keyboard so for every letter and space you have to count that as 50. So it's 50 times 50 times 50 for every letter and space.

Still the Bible says that: "By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place;" All of science is a study of the wisdom and knowledge that we find in Creation. So there is simply no evidence that the world was formed by a random process of any kind. The real question is what sets us apart from all the other species that we have this wisdom, knowledge and understanding that they do not seem to have.