Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"There's two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery.” --Enrico Fermi

Except that if you are Popper, then you don't agree with the first statement.

~~ Paul

 

[maatorc]

The infinite monkey theorum is well known....
One of the great parts of the theorum is how it illustrates the incomprehensibility of infinity for the human mind......
Indeed, it's been worked out the probability of randomly producing hamlet...
so, can the human mind ever hope to understand infinity? What role does infinity play in philosopy and theology?
Richard gervais (UK comic) on the infinite monkeys (10 mins in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQBlZIXu3Yg

Current advanced quantum thinking sees the universe as indistinguishable from a quantum computer.

Regarding the 'monkey' question, it sees the combination of very small probabilities together with the infinite age and extent of the visible universe as rendering the completely random generation of order extremely unlikely.

Just to create the first few lines of Hamlet by a fully random process such as monkeys typing, it is thought, would take the entire computational resouces of the universe; and to create anything more complicated by a random process would require greater computational resources than the universe is understood to possess.

maatorc.

 

[JamesDillon]

Current advanced quantum thinking sees the universe as indistinguishable from a quantum computer.

Regarding the 'monkey' question, it sees the combination of very small probabilities together with the infinite age and extent of the visible universe as rendering the completely random generation of order extremely unlikely.

Just to create the first few lines of Hamlet by a fully random process such as monkeys typing, it is thought, would take the entire computational resouces of the universe; and to create anything more complicated by a random process would require greater computational resources than the universe is understood to possess.

maatorc.

I'm well out of my league here, but could you explain in English-major terms why "To be or not to be, that is the question" would require greater "computational resources" than "gzpqb rpblqo spwwzpqlg qvlfhjurbsas wgalc rv"?

Edit: To follow up on that, why is a comprehensible statement in English more "ordered" than any other string of characters of equal length, simply because we assign meaning to one but not to the other?

 

[l0rca]

Current advanced quantum beats thinking sees the universe as indistinguishable guy from a quantum computer person. Sometimes I like to drink a lot of apple juice with my cherries

This doesn't make any sense.

Regarding the 'monkey'

William Shatner, monkeys, and quantum people have nothing to do with the real stuff. Also I don't know why you single quoted monkey. I don't ever do that, and most people think single quoting should be reserved for distant tropes.

question,

What? Question? What question?

it sees the combination of very large probabilities differing with the infinite age and extent of the invisible unicorn as rendering the completely determinist generation of order extremely unlikely.

I verily agree to this stuff. Grate job!

Just to create the first few lines of Hamlet

Is hamlet a monkey or a quantum person? What are you speaking about here? Are you even speaking or typing? If you are typing, are you a quantum person? Or a monkey?

by a fully random process raw I'm gonna give it to you such as monkeys typing, it is thought, no trivia, would take the entire computational resouces of the universe; and to create anything cocaine cut straight from bolivia more complicated by a random process would require greater computational resources than the universe is understood to possess.
maatorc.

You need to watch a deep movie like Jersey Girl for this thing. Then go pray. I hope things work out for you.

Do not misquote other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Tez]

Except that if you are Popper, then you don't agree with the first statement.

~~ Paul

Paul I think I know that you know what I think about this , but I'll say it for anyone else: Science is not about empericism, verifying predictions, following some sort of "method" or any of that nonsense. Its about a desire and a quest for deeper understanding. And in that sense Fermi is spot on .

 

[maatorc]

This doesn't make any sense.
William Shatner, monkeys, and quantum people have nothing to do with the real stuff. Also I don't know why you single quoted monkey. I don't ever do that, and most people think single quoting should be reserved for distant tropes.
What? Question? What question?
I verily agree to this stuff. Grate job!
Is hamlet a monkey or a quantum person? What are you speaking about here? Are you even speaking or typing? If you are typing, are you a quantum person? Or a monkey?
You need to watch a deep movie like Jersey Girl for this thing. Then go pray. I hope things work out for you.

Is it your practise to misrepresent and lie about other posters on this site?

 

[maatorc]

...... could you explain in English-major terms why "To be or not to be, that is the question" would require greater "computational resources" than "gzpqb rpblqo spwwzpqlg qvlfhjurbsas wgalc rv"?
Edit: To follow up on that, why is a comprehensible statement in English more "ordered" than any other string of characters of equal length, simply because we assign meaning to one but not to the other?

You are probably right: Any chosen sequence of the same length and letter distribution or order, whether or not comprehensible in any language, would likely require the same computational resources.

The question of generating these sequences relates to computation, not meaning.

It is also probable that present quantum thinking is not the last word on this.

maatorc.

 

[Tez]

It is also probable that present quantum thinking is not the last word on this.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that your understanding of "present quantum thinking" is non-orthgonal from asking the aforementioned monkeys to choose random buzz words from a textbook on quantum mechanics. But feel free to prove me wrong...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I hypothesise that 2 monkeys working for 15 minutes could recreate the works of lifegazer if one of them was on break.

 

[andyandy]

just out of interest, how can the universe be infinitly big and expanding?
Surely that is a contradiction......

is it because it's infinitly big in one sense (dimension?) and expanding in another sense (dimension?)

Is it not really infinite?

Or does infinity not actually exist in the physical universe?

 

[brodski]

I hypothesise that 2 monkeys working for 15 minutes could recreate the works of lifegazer if one of them was on break.

Yeah, but they're probably smart enough not to.

 

[Dave1001]

just out of interest, how can the universe be infinitly big and expanding?
Surely that is a contradiction......

is it because it's infinitly big in one sense (dimension?) and expanding in another sense (dimension?)

Is it not really infinite?

Or does infinity not actually exist in the physical universe?

My monkey brain finds it difficult to perceive that infinity actually exists, except in an asymptotic sense. I suspect everything in the universe can be broken down into discrete units and that there is a finite amount of eah discreet unit. However, that's because that's the only way I can currently comprehend the universe.

In principle, though, it's not hard to show a thought experiment of an infinite yet expanding universe.
At T=1 the universe only consists of all odd whole prime numbers
At T=2 the universe only consists of all whole prime numbers
At T=3 the universe only consists of all whole numbers
At T=4 the universe only consists of all integers
At T=5 the universe only consists of all rational numbers

There's a univers that is infinite at T=1, yet expanding for T=1 through 5. Makes intellectual sense, although in a practical sense I can't wrap my head around it, or even around all whole prime numbers (cause there's no end to them).

 

[Skeptic]

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

The internet has proven that that's not true.

 

[Dog Boots]

When I use this example in teaching I make the students calculate: If every atom in the universe (about 10^80) were actually a monkey typing at a teraherz (as fast as our fastest computers) for the whole time since the universe began, what is the probability they produce Shakespeare's Sonnett 116. (Its essentially 0). However what if you had a mechanism set up so that every time a monkey typed a valid english word they received a reward...?

I imagine they would start pressing nothing but "a" and "I"

- Seriously, I do appreciate your point, though.

 

[brodski]

The internet has proven that that's not true.

wrong

 

[EGarrett]

just out of interest, how can the universe be infinitly big and expanding?
Surely that is a contradiction......

is it because it's infinitly big in one sense (dimension?) and expanding in another sense (dimension?)

Is it not really infinite?

Or does infinity not actually exist in the physical universe?

Look at it this way. An ant could walk in one-direction along the surface of a balloon forever. But if you were inflating that balloon, it would also be expanding.

If the universe is 3-dimensional space "bent" into a fourth dimension, then we can travel through it forever, but it could also be expanding. So yes, it could be expanding in another dimension.

My monkey brain finds it difficult to perceive that infinity actually exists, except in an asymptotic sense. I suspect everything in the universe can be broken down into discrete units and that there is a finite amount of eah discreet unit. However, that's because that's the only way I can currently comprehend the universe.

In principle, though, it's not hard to show a thought experiment of an infinite yet expanding universe.
At T=1 the universe only consists of all odd whole prime numbers
At T=2 the universe only consists of all whole prime numbers
At T=3 the universe only consists of all whole numbers
At T=4 the universe only consists of all integers
At T=5 the universe only consists of all rational numbers

There's a univers that is infinite at T=1, yet expanding for T=1 through 5. Makes intellectual sense, although in a practical sense I can't wrap my head around it, or even around all whole prime numbers (cause there's no end to them).

The Celestials used pretty much this exact method of reasoning to explain to Cosmic Spider-Man why he had infinite power but they were still more powerful than he was.

Could you be one of them?

 

[Dave1001]

The Celestials used pretty much this exact method of reasoning to explain to Cosmic Spider-Man why he had infinite power but they were still more powerful than he was.

Could you be one of them?

yes.

 

[EGarrett]

Thought so.

Anyway, here's my question. Would you get an infinite number of copies of Hamlet?

 

[Dave1001]

Thought so.

Anyway, here's my question. Would you get an infinite number of copies of Hamlet?

That's easy. Yes. Here's my question, how long would it take to get them? If you can't cut and paste fragmented copies between monkeys (which I think would be cheating), then I think you'd get your infinite copies in the shortest possible amount of time it would take a monkey to physically type out a Hamlet-length document. I'm guesstimating a day or two.

Let's say you have finite monkeys. How many monkeys would one need to have functionally sure odds that one of them would type out Hamlet? With correct spacing and punctuation? I think we can simplify this a bit to a probability problem involving all the characters of Hamlet randomly being assembled in the correct order, with enough independent random agents that that odds that none of them would type out Hamlet would only be one in a million. So, how many monkeys would we need?

 

[EGarrett]

With infinite monkeys it would be typed in the minimum amount of time for such a thing to happen. You don't really need infinite monkeys and infinite time, just one or the other since any number you could use multipled by infinity is infinity.