Monkeys and type writers
Discussion
Sirs, I've been found subverting the Higgs thread into a discussion on the probability of life, and as requested, have started this thread in the hope of gaining enlightment from your collective minds.
So we all know that given an extrodinary length of time (perhaps infinite) and an huge number of type writers a team of monkeys would eventually bash out the works of William Shakespear (through a process of random chance rather than some evolutionary process it must be added), I might be right in assuming they'd be as likely to do it on the first attempt as any other attempt, so it may only take a week or so.
This analogy is often repeated as expanation of infinity and the probability of things happening being a certainty given infinite or near infinite resources, such as the cosmos has.
It's obvious therefore, that aswell as the certainity of the works of Shakespear, Mozart or Eistein being present in the universe, created by monkeys, also present in the universe is a larger amount, practically infinite amount of meaningless drivel, on the way to completeing War and Peace the monkeys must have produced a fair amount of nonsense.
So my question for the scientists especially for those that think that philosophy is dead and science can provide all the anwers, such as Prof Hawkins, is what is it that gives a certain combination of events a meaning or purpose? And why does science only concentrate on those that they see the meaning in?
So we all know that given an extrodinary length of time (perhaps infinite) and an huge number of type writers a team of monkeys would eventually bash out the works of William Shakespear (through a process of random chance rather than some evolutionary process it must be added), I might be right in assuming they'd be as likely to do it on the first attempt as any other attempt, so it may only take a week or so.
This analogy is often repeated as expanation of infinity and the probability of things happening being a certainty given infinite or near infinite resources, such as the cosmos has.
It's obvious therefore, that aswell as the certainity of the works of Shakespear, Mozart or Eistein being present in the universe, created by monkeys, also present in the universe is a larger amount, practically infinite amount of meaningless drivel, on the way to completeing War and Peace the monkeys must have produced a fair amount of nonsense.
So my question for the scientists especially for those that think that philosophy is dead and science can provide all the anwers, such as Prof Hawkins, is what is it that gives a certain combination of events a meaning or purpose? And why does science only concentrate on those that they see the meaning in?
ewenm said:
The "Monkeys and Shakespeare" analogy is well-used but can be mis-understood. In the analogy, there is nothing special about the works of Shakespeare, it is merely a vehicle for the idea of a specific series of letters, numbers and punctuation. In the analogy, there is no extra value placed on Shakespeare over the "meaningless drivel" that you rightly say would also be produced. The analogy makes no value statement about the outputs.
All the analogy is saying is that given enough time, any pre-specified sequence of characters will be produced by random typing. It uses the works of Shakespeare as an example of a pre-specified sequence. Not as an example of something of meaning or value.
Humanity gives meaning to things. Science might explain the "how?", only humanity can decide on an answer to the question of "why?".
So this is essentially my issue with the whole idea of Theoretical physics and how I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) what's going on a CERN etc...All the analogy is saying is that given enough time, any pre-specified sequence of characters will be produced by random typing. It uses the works of Shakespeare as an example of a pre-specified sequence. Not as an example of something of meaning or value.
Humanity gives meaning to things. Science might explain the "how?", only humanity can decide on an answer to the question of "why?".
They appear to have generated some phillosophy of the physical world during the early part of the last century, then spent the last 40 years attempting to proove correct some theory.
The discussion on probability, with the monkeys etc, concludes all things are possible, equally likely, and that the universe is crammed with an infinite amount of information. It's my position that had Higgs come up with a theory of another type, given the resources, we'd be able to find data to match his theory amongst the meaningless chatter of the universe.
This is surely logical and backed up by your own comments, if humans give the universe it's meaning inversly the universe (which contains all equally likely possibilities) can present all solutions to any given question of it.
Science was science when Faraday and Newton were making discoveries from positions of ignorance to our perception of the workings of th universe, what CERN seem to me to have done is to pose a question of the universe and set about finding an answer, which the universe will always have, becasue it contains all answers to all questions. All is possible and equally likely.
ewenm said:
You need to let go of the equally likely bit - it's wrong. Monkeys typing the word "the" by random typing is much more likely than them typing a limerick. Given enough time they will type said limerick, but in that time they will also type "the" many millions of times. Given enough time, both will happen, but that does not mean they are equally likely.
Point holds, given the data of what the monkeys had typed we could find "the", "Limerick", "Pogostick" or "umbungowangechumchum"The repition would not be eqaully probable due to the complexity of their nature, but the probability of their existence is equally likely - is it not? It's a trap to assume repition or frequency is equal to a truth as this prooves, "the" is equally occuing as "hte" - but only one of these contains a "truth" of knowledge when presented to our human mind. This is the black swan problem again - don't assume that just because something happens a lot it's valid, take my posting on here for example.
Jinx said:
Gene Vincent said:
So for any 'philosopher' to question the need to concentrate on what gave philosophers their collective breath (the uncharitable might call it wind) is irony piled upon irony.
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
The concentration on what works, means you are warm and well fed and can punch a keyboard with your stubby little fingers all day long, pontificating about philosophy and how much better or more valid it is... the irony is lost on you, but to me it is stark
Berthold Brecht said:
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral
Jinx said:
mattnunn said:
I've a feeling Brecht had a different context in mind!
Depends if he was using yiddish slang...... Jinx said:
mattnunn said:
The Bertolt Brecht I have in mind was certainly not Jewish, I don't know that he would use yiddish slang, I may have missed something in this conversation, probably because I'm thick, like Gene suggests.
Fressen is yiddish slang for cunnilingus HTH 
No wonder the third reich wanted rid of the jews, that kind of double entendre could bring a country down!
Bedazzled said:
mattnunn said:
Bedazzled said:
An interesting philosophical question is why is the universe comprehensible?
You've assumed it is?1) The universe is pretty simple
2) The universe is complex but luckily humans have the innate ability to understand all things
3) The universe is complex but luckily humans have the ability to learn to understand all things
4) Humans do a good job of convincing themselves of any or all the 3 of the above by use of imagination and narrative they can selectively arrange the infinite data in the universe into something that makes sense to them.
The first 3 would lead to their being some sort of undeniable truth out there somewhere, and end to a very long story.
The last one leaves the universe as an infinite blank canvas upon which we can cheryy pick our colours and textures and paint the pictures we like.
I think I know which is most likely. If the universe contains all probablilty - can their been a single undeniable truth. As agreed previously the monkeys could equally create Shakespear or Mozart, we would all have a preference to which we'd prefer.
wormburner said:
Derek Smith said:
wormburner said:
A nebula isn't beautiful. Rather our experience of a nebula is that which we call beautiful. Very different.
I think that statement is more aligned to philosophy than science. We could say anything we perceive is our interpretation. I think it deserves a thread all of its own.The nubula just is, and things we know or learn about it are neither hindered nor helped by a cluster of humans thinking it beautiful. The attribution to it of poetic nonsense is an irrelevance.
Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
ewenm said:
mattnunn said:
So your saying science is the process of removing humanity from human perception? Presumably you feel your vision of a binary non poetic universe makes you somehow rise above? I jest with you... Pay no attention.
Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
What truths do you see us having choice between?Perhaps revisit the OP. Probability was the topic, in a universe capable of limitless possibles, where we're told all things are certain, why would anyone choose one particular truth over another?
But, strangely, it is also undeniable that all truth was first imagined by human thought, I don't believe there is a fundemental nature to the universe outside of human experience, not particular to science just in general.
I don't believe if humans weren't here that gravity would cease to exist and all the animals would float about, but without Newton's (for sake of argument) imagination gravity would be a nameless and undiscovered, an irrelevance, the badgers would not speak of it, the shrews would not care - but we do care, the question is why do we care, is it because we're modelling the universe or just a freak coincidence we have this ability?
wormburner said:
This isn't a universe of limitless possibilities, were did you get that from? All things are not certain. Only things that are, are certain. Your understanding, or your presentation of your understanding, of probability is poor.
.
If I role a dice there are six truths, they're all equally valid and certain truths, the final resting place of the dice is chance, all six certainties can't occur at once, but they're all certain outcomes and valid true states..
Likewise in the giant tumble dryer that is the universe, made of bazillions of possible atomic combinations, each one is a certainty, a valid state, equally likely to occur in the event of a re-role? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Use Psychology said:
you've got things a bit backwards. there is a model of particle physics. when it was new it explained lots of observations and predicted lots of things that hadn't been observed.
Dear Use Psychiatry, this makes no sense, how did it explain observations that hadn't been observed?Use Psychology said:
scientists wanted to validate their predictive theory and therefore set out to confirm it via experiment. that's what science is: collect facts, try to explain them, use the explanation to make predictions, test the predictions with experiment.
Well, the great science bods, like Newton and Faraday did infact start with an observation on the world or a phenomena, then create a hypothesis in attempt to explain it.The "sceintific method" as our friends call it is infact an adoption of hegels dialectic approach to philosophy (or life). Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. This is how science progresses through conversation and correction ad infinitum, experimentation also being modelled on this.
My contention holds the search for the Higgs Boson was not in the model of most sientific discoveries as it didn't start with an observation.
Derek Smith said:
You cannot leave people out of any scientific experiment. We don't only pollute oceans but corrupt experiments as well. Even double blinds are just the best we can do. Every experiment starts with people and ends with people. In the middle are people. It is nice to think that maths is in some way pure but it is self delusion. Once you get a ruler out, you bring people in.
Gene puts the ruler on the desk and asks it "tell me what you say, ruler"Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff