<title_here - deleted due to porn ads>

[Marrone]

The monkey thing isn't a theory, it's just a sort of thought experiment to illustrate the principle of probability and randomness. If you want drivel, just pick up your Bible.

yes it is not a theory as it says it is a theorum. clever monkey

 

[Marrone]

If the total permutations of letters of the English language are finite, and you have an unlimited number of attempts to arrange them, with no limit to how they can be arranged, then it makes sense you'd eventually get the works of Shakespeare. I think the real issue is how this intersects with our universe. In theory, this makes sense. But where do we have infinite resources in practice? Do we have the time for trial and error to create every structure?

I had the idea that trial and error itself could evolve to become more precise, then I heard this idea in Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's tale, where he claims that he conceived this idea in the late 80s. I felt I was was robbed of posthumous fame. Still, I suspect Aristotle was right that nature is more intelligent and purposeful than we realize.

you should write this to newscientist and not htat person but it okay it clear you argue with shadows

 

[Marrone]

Thanks for the video Nick, this is a totally new one to me (the theory) but interesting all the same and the video (we love you Karl) made it understandable without getting too complicated and was amusing to boot.

Wikipedia was too complicated for my liking, and so I asked AI chatbot.

Could I reach the bottom of an infinite lake with an infinite bargepole?

The question of whether you could reach the bottom of an infinite lake with an infinite bargepole touches on concepts from mathematics and physics rather than practical reality. An infinite lake by definition has no bottom, as it extends infinitely in depth. Therefore, no matter how long your bagrepole is—whether it's infinitely long or not—you would not be able to reach a "bottom," because there isn't one.

Moreover, in a theoretical sense, if you were to have an infinite pole, reaching down infinitely wouldn't necessarily imply you could ever touch the bottom, since the lake itself is infinite. Thus, while it's an interesting thought experiment, the outcome is firmly rooted in the understanding that infinity doesn't function like finite measurements."

this not mean anythink Gomer

 

[Marrone]

According to some, this theory is out the window.

Chimpanzees will never randomly type the complete works of Shakespeare

The infinite monkey theorem states that illiterate primates could write great literature with enough time, but the amount of time needed is much longer than the lifespan of the universe

www.newscientist.com

Oh well. Maybe we should invent another arrogant statement to claim absolute drivel and trick the dummies to lead them to their deaths.

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/12102137/SEI_151103245.jpg?width=837

how lead to deaths

 

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[A_Son_of_God]

how lead to deaths

<comment_here>

 

[Kev45]

this not mean anythink Gomer

Finks four de carmpliment sweathert.

In the Hebrew Bible, one of Noah's grandsons and prophet Hosea's wife are known by the name Gomer.

 

[SilverFoxLondon]

The theory is not out of the window. An infinite number of monkeys could type the works of shakespeare still holds.

The article actually says "If every chimpanzee on Earth were given a typewriter, they wouldn’t reproduce the works of William Shakespeare even if they kept on typing until the heat death of the universe".

The headline should probably read "Scientists realise there aren't infinite monkeys in the world".

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The theory is not out of the window. An infinite number of monkeys could type the works of shakespeare still holds.

The article actually says "If every chimpanzee on Earth were given a typewriter, they wouldn’t reproduce the works of William Shakespeare even if they kept on typing until the heat death of the universe".

The headline should probably read "Scientists realise there aren't infinite monkeys in the world".

<comment_here>

 

[transit]

Laaaads please chill out and relax.. lifes too short!)

 

[roxlapalma]

**** YOU

 

[Just_Me]

Well, based on the fact that the universe could not produce enough monkeys, then it's pretty sound to me.

Now replace that idea with a simple AI.
That could randomly create all of his works depending on how much energy we supply it.
We dont need the monkey.
Although, in theory a random chimp could do it in its life time, but the odds?