Actually, randomness is whitenoise. And the monkey here isn`t really a monkey, but one should rather say a random number generator. One random number generator is white noise, not the works of shakespear. Any number of monkeys usually over 4, will generate a sum of gaussian white noise. This theorem is completely false. No randomness generates nonrandom events. Peace.
@ParadoxEternal The time scale being INFINITE means that every conceivable possibility will be typed out, which of course includes the complete works of Shakespeare. There are 5 year Olds who probably understand this concept, you should be a little embarrassed that you do not. It is a mathematical certainty, not a nonsense theory.
@lowtalkerr Timescale doesn`t matter. And there probably are alteast 12 year olds who understand this. That it should be labeled a "scientific" theory, and propounded by people claiming to be scientists, is absolutely absurd. Now before you speak, please research the connection between randomness and white noise. And reproduce it scientifically. I do believe once you hear the white noise, on your speaker, and that is only generates white noise, you will realize without any doubt.
There is no real proof or indication of infinite universes, therefore the only absurdity is to assume it. If it was true however, then I don't see the problem.
@QuickRefs Simply to emphasize the absurdity of this certainty if we do live in an infinite universe. If you believe the universe is infinite, you also MUST believe this WILL happen. Obviously 'monkey' was used to insult the theory as being absurd.
@rich1051414 It may or may not happen. Despite the fact that you deal with infinity, it doesn't mean monkeys are guarantied to accomplish this task. That is because they type randomly, NOT every combination of letters. It's called the zero-one law.
Wrong. adsfl;akdfmadkldmfgslkfmsdfklsmdfgklsgmsfklmsgklssdfklsmf. That's as "random" as it gets whenever someone tries to type "random" letters. Notice that they aren't actually random, but are dictated by the position of my palm, and thus fingers, and my belief that to be random, I have to deliberate my actions as little as possible, which is why you see the same letters recurring. 58 characters in total. Only 10 different letters used, and one semicolon.
@LoquaciousApe You typed one line. Keep going to infinity, and you will eventually type every novel written on earth infinite number of times. I know its hard to believe. But such is infinity, Even if it is random.
@Benlikesgirls "Monkey" refers to primates with tails. Assuming you don't have one, and that you are indeed a descendent of the homo sapiens lineage, you are not a monkey.
I don't like the infinite monkey theorem because it fails the very moment you consider the fact that monkeys are not random number generators.
They will always follow some sort of pattern by which they hit numbers, even if it's seemingly random, nuances like left/right hand alteration can and will be observed - making this whole thing even more troublesome.
tl;dr: An infinite number of monkeys typing will not necessarily create every single possibility of text.
@nandykins Consider also infinite sequences: {2,4,6,8...} is an infinite sequence, that means it contains an infinite amount of numbers, but that does *not* mean that it contains the numbers 3, 5 or 7. Being infinite is not equivalent to “contains every possibility”. The sequences {1,2,3...} and {2,4,6...} both contain an infinite number of elements, but one still represents a set twice as large. Similarly, the set of all monkey typings need not contain hamlet.
@nandykins I don't see how that fits in with the monkeys typing, could you expand a bit more? I realise that 34843579138584375934752 is even by the way. Thanks
@Mandragara The point is that monkeys are not random number generators. If you had a true random number generator feeding into your type writers, certainly, you would get infinite copies of Hamlet.
But a monkey's actions are controlled by its brain which is controlled by its structure, layout, wiring, thinking process which are controlled by its senses. There's simply nothing to indicate it will even produce the correct keystroke patterns capable of making up Hamlet.
@nandykins In other terms, try asking a bunch of people to mash their keyboard “at random” - I can guarantee you the vast majority of keystrokes will consist of left-right alterations. Even though you think you're being random, you're in fact quite predictable and rule-bound.
If it's, for example, physically uncomfortable for a monkey to produce a certain pattern, biology itself may invalidate the theorem.
@nandykins The point is that, basically, “infinite time” and “infinite space” do not equal “infinite possibilities”. Even if the universe extended endlessly and existed forever, as long as the rules of physics do not themselves get altered, there are things we'd *never* encounter.
Proving this theorem through experimental means is troublesome: An infinite number of monkeys would require an infinite amount of food (which is by itself a logistic nightmare), and would also crap an infinite number of turds... we'd need infinite money to pay an infinite number of people to shovel monkey shit out into space for eternity. Talk about a shitty job, but I guess it would at least get rid of unemployment. Also, the chance a monkey would type this very post eventually would be 100%.
whenever I have a conversation with someone, and they tell me that we were once "monkeys" I walk away. If you don't even know we're Apes then how can I take any of your other knowledge seriously?
OK. So according to this, I could just randomly combust, my ashes turn into Adolf Hitler, and go out and do 1,000 hours of community service? Or is that just a 0% chance of happening, and therefore will never happen, even in an infinite universe? Someone help.
@NAWRARESNAW Thank you, I have a firm grasp on this idea now. However, I figured that if the percent chance of something happening is exactly 0%, it will never happen, even in an infinite universe.
@bizarredude101 Its possibly a vehicle can materialize in front of you. Since Particles appear than disappear, this means matter can literally exist from nothing. Not "Impossible" but highly "improbable".
As for a multiverses IDK. but you can have infinite possibilities in this universe in terms of actions that coincide with natural laws. If this universe does eventually collapse in upon itself it starts the big bang over again and roles the dice of life once more. Speaking of life, it is a very interesting thing. It seems to be the only thing in nature that strives to exist for eternity. For the life of me I don't understand why life chooses or wants to be eternally stable. n.e.one?
@bboy1022 I have never heard of a theory where the universe is predicted to collapse upon itself. the reason the big bang theory is widely accepted is because there is EVIDENCE.
@ouggnoy it seems like that would be the ultimate fate of the universe. Either the universe is consumed my one massive black hole and forms the dense point of another "big bang" or the universe stops expanding and collapses in upon itself.
Its like throwing a ball straight into the air, it will come back down. (unless you throw it at 26K mph) but we are talking about something small like the earth. what about the pull of a 100 billion galaxies?
@bboy1022 if gravitational force is greater than the forces of dark matter, the universe would be shrinking. but that's not the case because the expansion of the universe is accelerating. you think the universe will collapse because it SEEMS like it would????
also, all black holes are constantly losing mass in the form of intense radiation. in turn they will all evaporate. your argument is completely misinformed and kind of sad.
@ouggnoy but still you are not looking at the whole picture. if you shoot a bullet straight into the air it will accelerate the first couple of feet out of the barrel. it will eventually slow down slow down slow down until it starts to fall back to earth on or around the point you shot it from. So of course the universe is expanding but so does a bullet out of a gun and like a bullet it will slow down and then come back. (instead of seconds think trillions of light years).
@ouggnoy if a bomb goes off the denser material is closer to the point of explosion while the less dense material spews further away. Now look at this in the spectrum of a universe. the gravitational pull of those denser items pulling back (no matter how weak the pull is) on the lighter items will eventually pull much of what was originally blasted away back to a extremely dense black hole or extremely dense point that will cave in and eventually explode again
@ouggnoy also hawking radi does cause it too lose mass but what happens when you have extremely large black holes? When these masses shoot out matter the matter (radiation) would not escape but would circle back to the event horizon ... its like the ocean water evaporates but its so large there is no noticeable effect unlike a drip of water on a table in sun lite... like i said before instead of trying to insult me understand my pov and then try to educate me. you seem like you could be smart.
@bboy1022 I'm not trying to insult you. your philosophy is that gravity will eventually pull the universe back into 1 singularity and then explode again. Your logic behind it is based on nothing beyond analogies to projectile motion of bullets and evaporation rate of water. YOU CAN'T PREDICT SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS QUANTUM MECHANICS WITH SIMPLE PRINCIPLES. Math is the only way you can crack the mysteries of the universe. and reading wikipedia entries doesn't give you the position to be an expert
I love to think about abstract things like this. I completely understand the theorem so much i can defend it, but I don't believe in infinity space as in you can physically travel in a straight line for infinity. I think once you get to a point everything (quarks) slows down until you reach a point in which the gravitational pull of the universe pulls you back to a central point (eventually the expansion of the uni will stop and reverse).
monkeys have stubby fingers. There has been a study done on this at a university that I can't recall. The result was that the monkey had produced nothing but 5 pages of the letter 's'
the conclusion of that study is that monkeys do not have the capability to produce perfectly random sequences of letters.
the theorem suggests that hamlet could be written without the knowledge of grammar or language for that matter. so no, the theorem has not been proven because Hamlet knew what he was doing
@ouggnoy but you don't understand. You have infinite possibilities so basically everything including the currently absurd is possible. It may take a billion billion billion billion billion years (another billion, just for luck) to occur. Within that time a monkey may type everything verbatim but might miss an 'S' but at some point the whole thing will be verbatim. If time and space is infinite and we haven't discovered all of the laws of nature anything is possible.
@ouggnoy are you referring to the infinity theorem? my response to you? Well we don't really have anything better to describe degradation that what we refer to as time. I mean time in terms of the degradation of each universe from beginning to end ("big bang" to implosion) til whatever outcome (in this case hamlet). I guess what i mean by space is rather a new universe is formed or a universe already exist in another plan or, guess someone can say, dimension. space is the medium of infinity
@bboy1022 also hawking radi does cause it too lose mass but what happens when you have extremely large black holes? When these masses shoot out matter the matter would not escape but would circle back to the event horizon ... its like the ocean water evaporates but its so large there is no noticeable effect unlike a drip of water which disappears... like i said before instead of trying to insult me understand my pov and then try to educate me. you seem like you could be smart.
Ok, I hate to toot my own horn, but if you have a finite number of monkeys, then the probability is usually so low, that Hamlet would NEVER be written randomly by monkeys IN OUR UNIVERSE. And if it does not happen in our universe, then what are we talking about? Besides, could we fit an infinite number of monkeys in our universe?
@MathPhysicsQuestions why wouldn't it happen if you have even one monkey? As a matter of fact it would take the exact same time for one monkey to type it as it would 1 billion billion billion monkeys. I don't understand why you are tooting your horn. And also the theorem suggest an infinite number of universes. so if one fails to produce it you have an infinite number of other universes.
Not quite! Probability that a monkey will eventually write a test will get closer and closer to 1, and 1 at infinity but you never get to infinity. In fact give infinite number of monkeys two choices of A and B, even then probability that some monkey at some time will type A, won't be 1, It will get arbitrarily close to 1, but not to 1 in any finite time by finite number of monkeys. In the limit probability will be 1. Again you don't ever get to infinity.
Humans were monkeys too, so let met try... umm.... . alsdfaow8uer8auwerjhakwedfaisdyvoahxdvahse9fuasofrhakjdnvkasdfooasudfoaidlaksdjnfaksdhfoaisdflaknsdfohansodifjosijfoajsndf8esrfoaisehrfoaerkbaekbrk hh hoasdf ahisiudfo iaj HAMLET
Hmm guys chill up.. If you are thinking about it is impossible for that monkey to write hamlet coz if you try it its just like ( iagImj afniaero ) Take it as it is possible but the chance is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO low that we can not imagine that.. because its out of our thinking .. we are JUST humans
301 up and 20 down - ass backwards from what the thumbs should be. The video is filled with ignorant ramblings, the people arguing based on a regurgitation of the flawed claims in the video are showing their ignorance, and those who say it is impossible are the most ignorant of them all. The argument over the possibility of it happening is pointless. If there would be any debate, it should concern (1) Is the problem well-posed? and (2) Is successfully typing Hamlet actually a GUARANTEED event?
@ShallowWaterWalker to cut whatever egocentric narcissistic bs you are trying to say short ... It is a theory? Its pointless for you to ever tell a thinker not to think.....
@bboy1022 I said nothing resembling "Is it a theory?" and I do not discourage thought.
I said the video (and thread) is focused on "possible vs. impossible" when neither stance is as interesting as the question of whether the event is guaranteed or not. Depending on how 'random' is defined, the following theorem holds true: If each monkey is given only one chance to type Hamlet correctly, then not only will one of the monkeys succeed, but the number of successful monkeys is actually infinite.
Take the number pi. It is an infinite string of digits. Therefore a mathematician would assume that it MUST contain a numerical sequence like "0123456789" or 1-100 or 1-1000000. But the known part of pi does not show any regular patterns anywhere.
That's why the infinite monkey theorem is also invalid. It would NEVER result in a text like Hamlet. It would only then be true if the monkey consciously typed down different combinations of letters each time. However this wouldn't be random anymore.
Since the theorem involves the notion of an infinite number (of monkeys,of time etc), the chance that they will successfully write Hamlet is also infinite.
Hmmm. I thought about this but I proved it wrong. Usually, when you are randomly pressing buttons you press multiple ones beside eachother. It could theoretically be possible only if they pressed single keys at a time at differenmt places after
The Infinite Theorem is truly awesome to sit down and contemplate the majestic infinite possibilities, the infinite ideas, infinite beings..well infinite everything. If you get to a certain point, your head will be washed over by complete amazement on what there could possibly be in the universe of infinity.
@furstenfeldbruck Basically, if there are infinite, worlds, there are infinite planets just like ours. And if we were to ask a monkey on each of those planets to type randomly, eventually one of them will "randomly" type up Hamlet. The chances of this happening is insanely small, but if there really are infinite worlds, then its possible.
*puts pet chimp in front of computer* esaergsrthsrthsryyawerw wgfouayge ywegfoaweyfg oywefoauyweg ooaweia47845934 qye{WERThAWER98 P9y8yp89yp98yp pkjdg;;h fg'ioerig ;ap 'per098[09f'lxj; g;efha;oh;fk; ;;ou04zl sosee4ta84t8ep To be, or not to be: that is the question
Sounds like Dr Who crossed with the twilight zone turned into to some wack kids show made by stupid Aliens trying to find out why we exist. It's real absurd and I'll shoot the critters.
Thinking about infinity is boring because if infinity really is infinite youll eventually get a loop since theres infinite amount of possiblilities somewhere the whole thing starts all over again....
@kobasica why do you say that? can you prove that it is mathematically impossible? please refrain from using the word "mathematically" unless you really understand the math behind the subject that you're commenting on.
@kobasica Say there are 50 keys on the keyboard, the chance of the monkey hitting the correct key is 1/50 and hitting the second key correctly in that specific order would be (1/50*1/50) and it keeps multiplying untill the letters in hamlet end. The chance is unimmaginablly small but in infinite, all chances eventually rise to 100%. There you go, i just used maths to proove you wrong.
@AtomiicWarfare Just because the chance is 1/50 doesn't mean if the monkey randomly type 50 times it will get the correct letter. In reality it could type only letter S to infinite.
1 thing.... it's possible, it's always possible lol, you just have always a small chance, but it is possible that a monkey random writes a book, but really, what isn't possible?
This is bullshit. I have no idea why people use this theorem.
1: There is nothing that tells us that just because an universe is infinite, mass has to be infinite. If there is non-infinite mass in a infinite universe, the paradox fails.
2: Arguing that there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe, is like arguing that there are infinite amount of monkeys in the universe.
It probably doesnt exist, if we have never seen it, calculated it or observed it.
The argument isn't that there is an infinite number of monkeys. The argument is GIVEN an infinite amount of monkeys. You've created a strawman version of what the theorem actually is. Interestingly, infinite monkeys isn't necessary. The same statement could be said of 1 monkey, given infinite amount of time. A single monkey, during the course of eternity, would happen upon all possible combinations available using letters and spaces. That's the joy of infinity.
@appelelle 1. The premise is that universe is infinite. As the video videos says, there are infinite stars, infinite planets. That implies infinite mass.
2. The argument isnt that there's infinite mass in the universe, it is, given infinite possibilities, anything can happen - infinite number of monkeys composing all the literary masterpieces by typing random key strokes.
you're right bout one thing. "It probably" won't happen, it implies that there's a chance it can happen.
@Rosefeet The odds against everything aligning just right to create a copy of Earth so identical as to have an exact copy of you and me having this same conversation is mind bogglingly huge, but when you divide infinity by a finite number, no matter how huge, the answer is infinity, so there would be an infinite number of exact. copies of Earth in an infinite universe. We just have no way of knowing whether the universe is infinite.
@Rosefeet to begin or not to begin that's the question. well the universe isn't infinite and things that are infinitly big can't have a beginning unless they have been around for an infnite time. it must be build out of something and that something can't "build" the universe at an infinite speed. hope that answered the question :D
@uut0 If the universe is infinite, it would have started with an infinite singularity, which sounds like a contradiction, and is a difficult concept to grasp.
@therealEmpyre then we get the problem of where did an infinite singularity come from :O. if it has to expand from something it would have to expand with an infinite speed to get an infinite size :O. or there must be something else going on
@uut0 The infinite singularity wouldn't have expanded from a finite singularity. It would have been infinite to start with. Either way, where the singularity came from is unknown and probably unknowable.
Given an infinite number of bubbles in the universe, the laws of physics for each still wouldn't exist for infinte time though, would they? Each one would have limited life-span between creation and demise (big rip), so that would limit the monky's prose considerably. Even if each bubble exists for trillions of years, there is a huge difference between trillions of years and infinite time.
To any other observer of philosophy beyond the basic idea of the infinite monkeys, it's a lot like Leibniz's Monadology wherein the ultimate super computer takes all possible basic elements and with them, constructs the greatest possible world among all possible worlds resulting in our current universe with its parsimony of laws yet the greatest amount of diversity in experience. The God of Leibniz, that ultimate super computer, thinking on all variables across all time, made this.
This isnt paradoxal or counter-intuitive. It is fun to imagine that, randomly typing, the probability of "uejs94kslen7v830r" is the same as typing "infinity is wierd". Once you get to that, it's ok to get that what the guy said is acctualy basic statistics.
Here is the paradox in it:
If you state that the universe in all its dimensions is infinite, you would be implying that there is no beggining or origin, and this would counter-state the chaos theory, which implies that everything has a cause.
Why is this called a theorem? Theorems are what has be tested and proven. We cannot perform an experiment that involves an infinite monkeys. This is a *theory*.
This is called a theorem because it is based strictly off of a statistical analysis of probability as the numbers you are working with approach infinity.
The "monkeys" in this example are merely an analogy to the process of randomizing numbers in infinite series until you get a result (in this case a monkey typing Hamlet), therefore it is based off of a already proven mathematical theorem, only under a different name.
Delete the "statistical" out of your explanation and you're good to go, because statistics shows the relations between theory and empirics and these empirics aren't present in a system with alleged infinite possibilites.
Aristotle talking about Shakespeare is what's absurd. Timeline? I have no doubts that infinite monkeys could type infinitely long and never come close to even the first chapter of shakespeare. The whole thing is an analogy of evolution and that is not how evolution works. Unless you mean the human monkey, and then it is only valid once and only takes one of them. All the rest are acts of plagiarism. Fucking monkeys!
Is everyone being sarcastic are you all just not getting it? It doesn't matter that it's monkeys doing the typing, that they can live forever, that they're being fed, that they have appropriate dexterity. We only use "monkeys" in the theorem to denote a random input of keys, because monkeys would not know what they're doing. The point is that given an infinite space to work within, random processes eventually produce systems of order.
@jessemaurais Not when they only have chaotic tools to work with. It would be like expecting someone to carve the statue of David using nothing but their fingernails in the hard marble. Oh, sure, you'd get orderly CLUSTERS of keystrokes but you ain't gonna get Hamlet. Sorry but monkeys with typewriters is a bad analogy for what you're trying to say. Better you should use conservatives. They have no more understanding of anything than monkeys do but they can hit single keystrokes.
This makes no damn sense. Look at the fingers on those monkeys. Do you think they have the DEXTERITY to type cleanly enough to produce Hamlet? They're hitting CLUSTERS of keys with every stroke. So all you'd end up with is an infinite amount of key clusters not the precise typing required to produce Hamlet. It would make more sense to reconfigure the keyboard and then use fewer monkeys.
This theory is clearly absurd. If there were an infinite amount of monkeys they would run out of food and water before they could finish writing Hamlet.
no, that it's absurd that a monkey could type hamlet does not prove that there is no infinity. it might be true that there is no real world infinity, but this is not a proof of that.
now i'm glad i watched this before reading the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy: "Ford!" he said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out."
This assumes that the monkey is typing in a truly random fashion.
In fact, he is probably predisposed to typing certain keys more than others, as well as certain patterns. There may be a certain pattern which he never types - for example, maybe it is uncomfortable for him to type the letter 'x' after 'e or something. Therefore his "chance" of typing those letters or patterns could be 0, so he will never type Shakespeare. There is no real randomness except in the quantum world.
@culwin exactly, thus our universe is not infinite! Not only from this, but our universe began with finite energy, finite cannot go into infinite, and infinite itself cannot exist anyway, it is only a concept.
@culwin You dont seem to get infinate, this mean any possibility. What you said is right, that could happen but then one monkey out there proberly wouldn't get tired or do patterns. Infact as weird as this video is, if this universe is really infinate not only would this video be an example but out there a monkey really would be typing a shakespere novel on a computer. Sounds dumb but we go back to infinate stars and planets, so it just makes sense.
@F2DGraphics It is you who doesn't understand infinity.
The numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite. However, finding the number 3 between 1 and 2 is an impossibility, regardless of the fact that the numbers are infinite.
@culwin lol i dont know how that made sense to you. Either way you cannot compare numbers to infinite even if it's an example like that. Numbers are meaningless when it comes to infinite so technically it doesnt matter if 3 cant go before 2 because the numbers themselves are irrelevant.
@culwin I hate to call you wrong, but you are really going against all the greatest minds in science that consider this theory if the Universe truly is inifinate.
@F2DGraphics Not really. The great minds like myself understand the concept. Certain physics of the universe apply everywhere, even in infinite space. That means certain things are impossible. As a very simple example, if infinite monkeys flip an infinite number of coins, there is still ZERO chance that any of the coins will ever just defy gravity and fly off into space. According to your logic, such a thing is possible but your logic is flawed.
Actually, randomness is whitenoise. And the monkey here isn`t really a monkey, but one should rather say a random number generator. One random number generator is white noise, not the works of shakespear. Any number of monkeys usually over 4, will generate a sum of gaussian white noise. This theorem is completely false. No randomness generates nonrandom events. Peace.
ParadoxEternal 3 weeks ago
@ParadoxEternal The time scale being INFINITE means that every conceivable possibility will be typed out, which of course includes the complete works of Shakespeare. There are 5 year Olds who probably understand this concept, you should be a little embarrassed that you do not. It is a mathematical certainty, not a nonsense theory.
lowtalkerr 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lowtalkerr Timescale doesn`t matter. And there probably are alteast 12 year olds who understand this. That it should be labeled a "scientific" theory, and propounded by people claiming to be scientists, is absolutely absurd. Now before you speak, please research the connection between randomness and white noise. And reproduce it scientifically. I do believe once you hear the white noise, on your speaker, and that is only generates white noise, you will realize without any doubt.
ParadoxEternal 3 weeks ago
@lowtalkerr No, this is misconception.
QuickRefs 3 days ago
sooooo, monkeys plagerise?
MOOSENUT42 1 month ago
Future spoiler: In the future hackers will guess your password using methods evolving alternate universes and an infinite number of monkeys...
stuffedk 2 months ago in playlist Season 1
There is no real proof or indication of infinite universes, therefore the only absurdity is to assume it. If it was true however, then I don't see the problem.
stuffedk 2 months ago in playlist Season 1
@stuffedk How can you proof something is infinite? ask your self that before commenting.
koffypr 2 days ago
I don't get why you have to use monkeys and call it the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"?
QuickRefs 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@QuickRefs good question
danceisfun43 2 months ago in playlist More videos from SpaceRip
@QuickRefs Simply to emphasize the absurdity of this certainty if we do live in an infinite universe. If you believe the universe is infinite, you also MUST believe this WILL happen. Obviously 'monkey' was used to insult the theory as being absurd.
rich1051414 4 days ago
@rich1051414 It may or may not happen. Despite the fact that you deal with infinity, it doesn't mean monkeys are guarantied to accomplish this task. That is because they type randomly, NOT every combination of letters. It's called the zero-one law.
QuickRefs 3 days ago
perhaps shakespeare was a monkey...
futbolfever90 3 months ago in playlist SpaceRip Videos 10
Those are apes, not monkeys.
davidwmclean 5 months ago 12
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times
sapperzulu 5 months ago
In fact, they're so patterned that I could write an equation to accurately predict what my 1000th letter would be.
LoquaciousApe 6 months ago
Wrong. adsfl;akdfmadkldmfgslkfmsdfklsmdfgklsgmsfklmsgklssdfklsmf. That's as "random" as it gets whenever someone tries to type "random" letters. Notice that they aren't actually random, but are dictated by the position of my palm, and thus fingers, and my belief that to be random, I have to deliberate my actions as little as possible, which is why you see the same letters recurring. 58 characters in total. Only 10 different letters used, and one semicolon.
LoquaciousApe 6 months ago
@LoquaciousApe You typed one line. Keep going to infinity, and you will eventually type every novel written on earth infinite number of times. I know its hard to believe. But such is infinity, Even if it is random.
sukablianah2 4 months ago
I'm a monkey.
Technically.
Benlikesgirls 7 months ago
@Benlikesgirls "Monkey" refers to primates with tails. Assuming you don't have one, and that you are indeed a descendent of the homo sapiens lineage, you are not a monkey.
LoquaciousApe 6 months ago
@LoquaciousApe
Well, I made that comment before I watched the Planet of the Apes. I was ignorant.
Benlikesgirls 6 months ago
I don't like the infinite monkey theorem because it fails the very moment you consider the fact that monkeys are not random number generators.
They will always follow some sort of pattern by which they hit numbers, even if it's seemingly random, nuances like left/right hand alteration can and will be observed - making this whole thing even more troublesome.
tl;dr: An infinite number of monkeys typing will not necessarily create every single possibility of text.
nandykins 7 months ago
@nandykins Consider also infinite sequences: {2,4,6,8...} is an infinite sequence, that means it contains an infinite amount of numbers, but that does *not* mean that it contains the numbers 3, 5 or 7. Being infinite is not equivalent to “contains every possibility”. The sequences {1,2,3...} and {2,4,6...} both contain an infinite number of elements, but one still represents a set twice as large. Similarly, the set of all monkey typings need not contain hamlet.
nandykins 7 months ago
@nandykins But you're forgetting the infinite time thing! :P
Mandragara 6 months ago
@Mandragara No, I most certainly am not.
Spend an infinite amount of time counting all odd numbers up to infinity and you will still never have counted to “34843579138584375934752”.
nandykins 6 months ago
@nandykins I don't see how that fits in with the monkeys typing, could you expand a bit more? I realise that 34843579138584375934752 is even by the way. Thanks
Mandragara 6 months ago
@Mandragara The point is that monkeys are not random number generators. If you had a true random number generator feeding into your type writers, certainly, you would get infinite copies of Hamlet.
But a monkey's actions are controlled by its brain which is controlled by its structure, layout, wiring, thinking process which are controlled by its senses. There's simply nothing to indicate it will even produce the correct keystroke patterns capable of making up Hamlet.
nandykins 6 months ago
@nandykins In other terms, try asking a bunch of people to mash their keyboard “at random” - I can guarantee you the vast majority of keystrokes will consist of left-right alterations. Even though you think you're being random, you're in fact quite predictable and rule-bound.
If it's, for example, physically uncomfortable for a monkey to produce a certain pattern, biology itself may invalidate the theorem.
nandykins 6 months ago
@nandykins The point is that, basically, “infinite time” and “infinite space” do not equal “infinite possibilities”. Even if the universe extended endlessly and existed forever, as long as the rules of physics do not themselves get altered, there are things we'd *never* encounter.
nandykins 6 months ago
@nandykins Well put.
LoquaciousApe 6 months ago
Proving this theorem through experimental means is troublesome: An infinite number of monkeys would require an infinite amount of food (which is by itself a logistic nightmare), and would also crap an infinite number of turds... we'd need infinite money to pay an infinite number of people to shovel monkey shit out into space for eternity. Talk about a shitty job, but I guess it would at least get rid of unemployment. Also, the chance a monkey would type this very post eventually would be 100%.
Aethren 8 months ago
whenever I have a conversation with someone, and they tell me that we were once "monkeys" I walk away. If you don't even know we're Apes then how can I take any of your other knowledge seriously?
sacr3 8 months ago
@sacr3 What kind of ape are we?
i apologize for my error.
I was commenting on a monkey theorem video and got caught up in the excitement.
StruggleBunnies 8 months ago
@StruggleBunnies Homo-Sapien :P
sacr3 8 months ago
@sacr3 I'm walking away, I cant take you seriously.
StruggleBunnies 8 months ago
@StruggleBunnies hey now, you asked what kind of Ape we are, I told you, we're Homo Sapiens, or you could say Human Being
sacr3 8 months ago
@sacr3 I figured your response would have been a bit more scientific.
Especially with your comment about when people say monkey, you don't take their knowledge seriously.
I thought you'd mesmerize me, just a little let down.
It's not your fault, it's mine.
Bye mister Sapien.
StruggleBunnies 8 months ago
Humans are the only monkey that desperately don't want to be monkeys.
Regular monkeys don't care that they're monkeys.
They can just live their life happily.
Humans should stop trying not to be monkeys and just try to be happy.
StruggleBunnies 9 months ago
@StruggleBunnies We're apes..
sacr3 8 months ago
The human genome is 96% identical to monkey and 4% unique.
What if you had a turkey sandwich that was 96% poop and 4% turkey.
Would you be eating a turkey sandwich, or a poop sandwich?
Saying humans are not monkeys is like saying you're not eating a poop sandwich.
Take a bite out of that thought.
StruggleBunnies 9 months ago
OK. So according to this, I could just randomly combust, my ashes turn into Adolf Hitler, and go out and do 1,000 hours of community service? Or is that just a 0% chance of happening, and therefore will never happen, even in an infinite universe? Someone help.
bizarredude101 10 months ago
@bizarredude101 infinite=anything is possible.ANYTHING
NAWRARESNAW 9 months ago
@NAWRARESNAW Thank you, I have a firm grasp on this idea now. However, I figured that if the percent chance of something happening is exactly 0%, it will never happen, even in an infinite universe.
bizarredude101 9 months ago
@bizarredude101 Its possibly a vehicle can materialize in front of you. Since Particles appear than disappear, this means matter can literally exist from nothing. Not "Impossible" but highly "improbable".
sacr3 8 months ago
Part 2
As for a multiverses IDK. but you can have infinite possibilities in this universe in terms of actions that coincide with natural laws. If this universe does eventually collapse in upon itself it starts the big bang over again and roles the dice of life once more. Speaking of life, it is a very interesting thing. It seems to be the only thing in nature that strives to exist for eternity. For the life of me I don't understand why life chooses or wants to be eternally stable. n.e.one?
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 I have never heard of a theory where the universe is predicted to collapse upon itself. the reason the big bang theory is widely accepted is because there is EVIDENCE.
ouggnoy 10 months ago
@ouggnoy it seems like that would be the ultimate fate of the universe. Either the universe is consumed my one massive black hole and forms the dense point of another "big bang" or the universe stops expanding and collapses in upon itself.
Its like throwing a ball straight into the air, it will come back down. (unless you throw it at 26K mph) but we are talking about something small like the earth. what about the pull of a 100 billion galaxies?
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 if gravitational force is greater than the forces of dark matter, the universe would be shrinking. but that's not the case because the expansion of the universe is accelerating. you think the universe will collapse because it SEEMS like it would????
also, all black holes are constantly losing mass in the form of intense radiation. in turn they will all evaporate. your argument is completely misinformed and kind of sad.
kids these days...
ouggnoy 10 months ago
@ouggnoy but still you are not looking at the whole picture. if you shoot a bullet straight into the air it will accelerate the first couple of feet out of the barrel. it will eventually slow down slow down slow down until it starts to fall back to earth on or around the point you shot it from. So of course the universe is expanding but so does a bullet out of a gun and like a bullet it will slow down and then come back. (instead of seconds think trillions of light years).
bboy1022 10 months ago
@ouggnoy if a bomb goes off the denser material is closer to the point of explosion while the less dense material spews further away. Now look at this in the spectrum of a universe. the gravitational pull of those denser items pulling back (no matter how weak the pull is) on the lighter items will eventually pull much of what was originally blasted away back to a extremely dense black hole or extremely dense point that will cave in and eventually explode again
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 ok, now i think you're just fucking with me. that makes no sense. have you had high school physics yet????
kid you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
ouggnoy 10 months ago
@ouggnoy instead of trying to offend me try to understand me ... tell me what you think and why my logic is faulty
bboy1022 10 months ago
@ouggnoy instead of trying to offend me try to understand me ... tell me what you think and why my logic is faulty ... this is what adult people do.
bboy1022 10 months ago
@ouggnoy also hawking radi does cause it too lose mass but what happens when you have extremely large black holes? When these masses shoot out matter the matter (radiation) would not escape but would circle back to the event horizon ... its like the ocean water evaporates but its so large there is no noticeable effect unlike a drip of water on a table in sun lite... like i said before instead of trying to insult me understand my pov and then try to educate me. you seem like you could be smart.
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 I'm not trying to insult you. your philosophy is that gravity will eventually pull the universe back into 1 singularity and then explode again. Your logic behind it is based on nothing beyond analogies to projectile motion of bullets and evaporation rate of water. YOU CAN'T PREDICT SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS QUANTUM MECHANICS WITH SIMPLE PRINCIPLES. Math is the only way you can crack the mysteries of the universe. and reading wikipedia entries doesn't give you the position to be an expert
ouggnoy 10 months ago
Part 1
I love to think about abstract things like this. I completely understand the theorem so much i can defend it, but I don't believe in infinity space as in you can physically travel in a straight line for infinity. I think once you get to a point everything (quarks) slows down until you reach a point in which the gravitational pull of the universe pulls you back to a central point (eventually the expansion of the uni will stop and reverse).
bboy1022 10 months ago
monkeys have stubby fingers. There has been a study done on this at a university that I can't recall. The result was that the monkey had produced nothing but 5 pages of the letter 's'
the conclusion of that study is that monkeys do not have the capability to produce perfectly random sequences of letters.
the theorem suggests that hamlet could be written without the knowledge of grammar or language for that matter. so no, the theorem has not been proven because Hamlet knew what he was doing
ouggnoy 10 months ago
@ouggnoy but you don't understand. You have infinite possibilities so basically everything including the currently absurd is possible. It may take a billion billion billion billion billion years (another billion, just for luck) to occur. Within that time a monkey may type everything verbatim but might miss an 'S' but at some point the whole thing will be verbatim. If time and space is infinite and we haven't discovered all of the laws of nature anything is possible.
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 what are you talking about? what does time space have anything to do with this??
ouggnoy 10 months ago
@ouggnoy are you referring to the infinity theorem? my response to you? Well we don't really have anything better to describe degradation that what we refer to as time. I mean time in terms of the degradation of each universe from beginning to end ("big bang" to implosion) til whatever outcome (in this case hamlet). I guess what i mean by space is rather a new universe is formed or a universe already exist in another plan or, guess someone can say, dimension. space is the medium of infinity
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 also hawking radi does cause it too lose mass but what happens when you have extremely large black holes? When these masses shoot out matter the matter would not escape but would circle back to the event horizon ... its like the ocean water evaporates but its so large there is no noticeable effect unlike a drip of water which disappears... like i said before instead of trying to insult me understand my pov and then try to educate me. you seem like you could be smart.
bboy1022 10 months ago
Ok, I hate to toot my own horn, but if you have a finite number of monkeys, then the probability is usually so low, that Hamlet would NEVER be written randomly by monkeys IN OUR UNIVERSE. And if it does not happen in our universe, then what are we talking about? Besides, could we fit an infinite number of monkeys in our universe?
MathPhysicsQuestions 10 months ago
@MathPhysicsQuestions why wouldn't it happen if you have even one monkey? As a matter of fact it would take the exact same time for one monkey to type it as it would 1 billion billion billion monkeys. I don't understand why you are tooting your horn. And also the theorem suggest an infinite number of universes. so if one fails to produce it you have an infinite number of other universes.
bboy1022 10 months ago
Falacy - Where did the "monkey" come from? All things have a lifespan, except God
Patton7088 10 months ago
It cannot be infinite, since the number of letters in the book is finite.
equationist 10 months ago
Not quite! Probability that a monkey will eventually write a test will get closer and closer to 1, and 1 at infinity but you never get to infinity. In fact give infinite number of monkeys two choices of A and B, even then probability that some monkey at some time will type A, won't be 1, It will get arbitrarily close to 1, but not to 1 in any finite time by finite number of monkeys. In the limit probability will be 1. Again you don't ever get to infinity.
TRDGEEK 10 months ago
Humans were monkeys too, so let met try... umm.... . alsdfaow8uer8auwerjhakwedfaisdyvoahxdvahse9fuasofrhakjdnvkasdfooasudfoaidlaksdjnfaksdhfoaisdflaknsdfohansodifjosijfoajsndf8esrfoaisehrfoaerkbaekbrk hh hoasdf ahisiudfo iaj HAMLET
Oops! I typed it by mistake! Theorem proved!
BrainBUG1231 10 months ago
Hmm guys chill up.. If you are thinking about it is impossible for that monkey to write hamlet coz if you try it its just like ( iagImj afniaero ) Take it as it is possible but the chance is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO low that we can not imagine that.. because its out of our thinking .. we are JUST humans
(noob gramar im not pro in this language :-/ )
AndyCAgi 11 months ago
301 up and 20 down - ass backwards from what the thumbs should be. The video is filled with ignorant ramblings, the people arguing based on a regurgitation of the flawed claims in the video are showing their ignorance, and those who say it is impossible are the most ignorant of them all. The argument over the possibility of it happening is pointless. If there would be any debate, it should concern (1) Is the problem well-posed? and (2) Is successfully typing Hamlet actually a GUARANTEED event?
ShallowWaterWalker 11 months ago
@ShallowWaterWalker to cut whatever egocentric narcissistic bs you are trying to say short ... It is a theory? Its pointless for you to ever tell a thinker not to think.....
bboy1022 10 months ago
@bboy1022 I said nothing resembling "Is it a theory?" and I do not discourage thought.
I said the video (and thread) is focused on "possible vs. impossible" when neither stance is as interesting as the question of whether the event is guaranteed or not. Depending on how 'random' is defined, the following theorem holds true: If each monkey is given only one chance to type Hamlet correctly, then not only will one of the monkeys succeed, but the number of successful monkeys is actually infinite.
ShallowWaterWalker 10 months ago
Take the number pi. It is an infinite string of digits. Therefore a mathematician would assume that it MUST contain a numerical sequence like "0123456789" or 1-100 or 1-1000000. But the known part of pi does not show any regular patterns anywhere.
That's why the infinite monkey theorem is also invalid. It would NEVER result in a text like Hamlet. It would only then be true if the monkey consciously typed down different combinations of letters each time. However this wouldn't be random anymore.
lk3hjduio 11 months ago
Typo!!!
epicBZC 11 months ago
Since the theorem involves the notion of an infinite number (of monkeys,of time etc), the chance that they will successfully write Hamlet is also infinite.
VladChe 11 months ago
Hmmm. I thought about this but I proved it wrong. Usually, when you are randomly pressing buttons you press multiple ones beside eachother. It could theoretically be possible only if they pressed single keys at a time at differenmt places after
xseb5x 1 year ago
The Infinite Theorem is truly awesome to sit down and contemplate the majestic infinite possibilities, the infinite ideas, infinite beings..well infinite everything. If you get to a certain point, your head will be washed over by complete amazement on what there could possibly be in the universe of infinity.
Scytherene122190 1 year ago
frew;lh nfphydpfhjvgurnfvep; orp [g'e
hrEAh rjeqabghor nwafhjd sga fyiodhasfi
That's Hamlet for you.
TheSuperCommentGuy 1 year ago
If humans are modern monkeys, then the theorem has been proved right. Earth had a monkey who wrote hamlet.
StruggleBunnies 1 year ago 28
@StruggleBunnies it was intended.
PhotoShopChannel 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StruggleBunnies this is not really what its suggesting...
BeRayTV 9 months ago
@StruggleBunnies There isn't a single real monkey. Search wikipedia for it.
gamemaster47 9 months ago
@gamemaster47 You are absolutely right. I couldn't find a single real monkey on wikipedia.
Only pictures and stories.
We need further research into this matter.
StruggleBunnies 9 months ago
@StruggleBunnies We're apes
sacr3 8 months ago
@StruggleBunnies Clever... I admire that.
MrMuffinManMoh 8 months ago
@StruggleBunnies Humans are modern apes.
lyon1535 7 months ago
@StruggleBunnies Humans are apes.
HoLOLcaust 7 months ago
i know it says based in, but i still have jest "How did Aristotle theories monkeys writing Hamlet before Shakespeare was even born?!" XD
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
If only this would work for a college essay.
Fragbug 1 year ago
Let's give a try:
41vy163;iuq64.ba64u 'WPN8A4N'97X56D.I XRY/Wna[085 ' 9sz/ / a6p 09 zau/o6 'a9 [09 q n';lroj'a9p'p9z' ouali z//l975s/q/lkq/o'av5630allcopsarebastards426lakuhaukhlvh .zhri ;z;yr ; hskrhlbe6kuhwlk5j
thiefGR1987 1 year ago
LOL, it`s a person wearing mask.... i can see thru his mask and the hair !!
keosambath 1 year ago
what?
furstenfeldbruck 1 year ago
@furstenfeldbruck Basically, if there are infinite, worlds, there are infinite planets just like ours. And if we were to ask a monkey on each of those planets to type randomly, eventually one of them will "randomly" type up Hamlet. The chances of this happening is insanely small, but if there really are infinite worlds, then its possible.
tostrong4you 1 year ago
*puts pet chimp in front of computer* esaergsrthsrthsryyawerw wgfouayge ywegfoaweyfg oywefoauyweg ooaweia47845934 qye{WERThAWER98 P9y8yp89yp98yp pkjdg;;h fg'ioerig ;ap 'per098[09f'lxj; g;efha;oh;fk; ;;ou04zl sosee4ta84t8ep To be, or not to be: that is the question
ThomasWaddington 1 year ago
Sounds like Dr Who crossed with the twilight zone turned into to some wack kids show made by stupid Aliens trying to find out why we exist. It's real absurd and I'll shoot the critters.
MasterOfSpacetime 1 year ago
provably need spell check
wangzorman 1 year ago
only 1:32 wasted
shon9514 1 year ago
same with pi since it's non-terminating and non repeating if you assign letters to numbers youll eventually get hamlet lol
1Alt1 1 year ago
Thinking about infinity is boring because if infinity really is infinite youll eventually get a loop since theres infinite amount of possiblilities somewhere the whole thing starts all over again....
Mrdurf112 1 year ago
U have to have the ability to think infinitely to even grasp this in its infinite entirety...infinitely speaking!
raynaxotq143 1 year ago
قرد غبي واحمق هههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههههه
fareedasdalhoty 1 year ago
It's probably false, you dumbshit. Monkey brains may be structured so that certain patterns are impossible for them to replicate unwillingly.
WavesOfTrolls 1 year ago
Its already been thoroughly disproved, as exhibited by the internet...
pyro666926 1 year ago
when will science stop throwing up garbage such as the infinte universe theorm.. it is mathematically impossible.
kobasica 1 year ago
@kobasica why do you say that? can you prove that it is mathematically impossible? please refrain from using the word "mathematically" unless you really understand the math behind the subject that you're commenting on.
xiangyuli 1 year ago
@kobasica Say there are 50 keys on the keyboard, the chance of the monkey hitting the correct key is 1/50 and hitting the second key correctly in that specific order would be (1/50*1/50) and it keeps multiplying untill the letters in hamlet end. The chance is unimmaginablly small but in infinite, all chances eventually rise to 100%. There you go, i just used maths to proove you wrong.
AtomiicWarfare 1 year ago 31
@AtomiicWarfare From your explanation, I see a monkey typing the theorem of possiblity in front of a banana computer.
Good job Atomiic!
robbiewangyang 1 year ago
Comment removed
JizzMasterPino 11 months ago
@AtomiicWarfare
Hamlet itself isn't infinite. So the chances can't be infinite too.
JizzMasterPino 11 months ago
@AtomiicWarfare Just because the chance is 1/50 doesn't mean if the monkey randomly type 50 times it will get the correct letter. In reality it could type only letter S to infinite.
TheSeaOfFreedom 5 months ago
@TheSeaOfFreedom Yeah that's right, the change goes to 99.99999...% not 100% that was wrong of me to say. You are right.
AtomiicWarfare 5 months ago
@kobasica How is it mathematically impossible?
Schragmeister 1 year ago
@kobasica If you mean steady state theory, then you are correct. That theory is now largely discredited.
Mandragara 6 months ago
Universe is infinite, stars are too, monkeys are a specific number of that species which habitat this Earth. Therefore your theory is flaud
victorjngv 1 year ago
@victorjngv Yes, but with an infinite number of stars you also have an infinite number of Earths exactly like our own in every way.
eefree89 1 year ago
1 thing.... it's possible, it's always possible lol, you just have always a small chance, but it is possible that a monkey random writes a book, but really, what isn't possible?
donator6 1 year ago
ierj e s sfg jgjrir jreprjtpwoertn mr hrtoigdsfng isdf gi r jrgijr[gj sf mr jdgjgrgjgrnfblvboi s pjg9rkoiedfm fgdfsjgsrpigj'lfm fgkgofgorndsfma dnfajeihaeina eb berbrtbriee aejraheofeehrber erebrbarut tairtai rtauhao rarn adfa dgna gnargnifhith fk vbbns vhb94n 4 kfj rnf9 4n fijasfdgjtihs ms? xD
donator6 1 year ago
All you need for this theorem is one monkey, one computer, and an infinite amount of time.
yhallotharlol 1 year ago
This is bullshit. I have no idea why people use this theorem.
1: There is nothing that tells us that just because an universe is infinite, mass has to be infinite. If there is non-infinite mass in a infinite universe, the paradox fails.
2: Arguing that there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe, is like arguing that there are infinite amount of monkeys in the universe.
It probably doesnt exist, if we have never seen it, calculated it or observed it.
appelelle 1 year ago
@appelelle
The argument isn't that there is an infinite number of monkeys. The argument is GIVEN an infinite amount of monkeys. You've created a strawman version of what the theorem actually is. Interestingly, infinite monkeys isn't necessary. The same statement could be said of 1 monkey, given infinite amount of time. A single monkey, during the course of eternity, would happen upon all possible combinations available using letters and spaces. That's the joy of infinity.
Authilus 1 year ago
@appelelle 1. The premise is that universe is infinite. As the video videos says, there are infinite stars, infinite planets. That implies infinite mass.
2. The argument isnt that there's infinite mass in the universe, it is, given infinite possibilities, anything can happen - infinite number of monkeys composing all the literary masterpieces by typing random key strokes.
you're right bout one thing. "It probably" won't happen, it implies that there's a chance it can happen.
xiangyuli 1 year ago
I loled at the gorilla using the macbook XD
davidenelson 1 year ago
AWESOME VIDEO! I LOVE THEM! THUMBS UP! =D
KarbineKyle 1 year ago
@Rosefeet The odds against everything aligning just right to create a copy of Earth so identical as to have an exact copy of you and me having this same conversation is mind bogglingly huge, but when you divide infinity by a finite number, no matter how huge, the answer is infinity, so there would be an infinite number of exact. copies of Earth in an infinite universe. We just have no way of knowing whether the universe is infinite.
therealEmpyre 1 year ago
@Rosefeet to begin or not to begin that's the question. well the universe isn't infinite and things that are infinitly big can't have a beginning unless they have been around for an infnite time. it must be build out of something and that something can't "build" the universe at an infinite speed. hope that answered the question :D
uut0 1 year ago
@uut0 If the universe is infinite, it would have started with an infinite singularity, which sounds like a contradiction, and is a difficult concept to grasp.
therealEmpyre 1 year ago
@therealEmpyre then we get the problem of where did an infinite singularity come from :O. if it has to expand from something it would have to expand with an infinite speed to get an infinite size :O. or there must be something else going on
uut0 1 year ago
@uut0 The infinite singularity wouldn't have expanded from a finite singularity. It would have been infinite to start with. Either way, where the singularity came from is unknown and probably unknowable.
therealEmpyre 1 year ago
@therealEmpyre if it is infinite
uut0 1 year ago
@therealEmpyre If they had an infinite amonunt of time, of course they would, in a finite amount of time.
I'm not sure you«re capable of comprehending this matter.
x2thay 1 year ago
Given an infinite number of bubbles in the universe, the laws of physics for each still wouldn't exist for infinte time though, would they? Each one would have limited life-span between creation and demise (big rip), so that would limit the monky's prose considerably. Even if each bubble exists for trillions of years, there is a huge difference between trillions of years and infinite time.
lasertuber 1 year ago
To any other observer of philosophy beyond the basic idea of the infinite monkeys, it's a lot like Leibniz's Monadology wherein the ultimate super computer takes all possible basic elements and with them, constructs the greatest possible world among all possible worlds resulting in our current universe with its parsimony of laws yet the greatest amount of diversity in experience. The God of Leibniz, that ultimate super computer, thinking on all variables across all time, made this.
PObserver 1 year ago
1:24 - emo monkey
poo123mongoosepancak 1 year ago
So I have infinite chances to get the same girl? That narrows it down to straight easyness.
CommissarBraxton 1 year ago
fascinating title.
grip07PM 1 year ago
This isnt paradoxal or counter-intuitive. It is fun to imagine that, randomly typing, the probability of "uejs94kslen7v830r" is the same as typing "infinity is wierd". Once you get to that, it's ok to get that what the guy said is acctualy basic statistics.
Here is the paradox in it:
If you state that the universe in all its dimensions is infinite, you would be implying that there is no beggining or origin, and this would counter-state the chaos theory, which implies that everything has a cause.
lambsio 1 year ago
"...it's clearly absurd"
kansasisaband 1 year ago
Why is this called a theorem? Theorems are what has be tested and proven. We cannot perform an experiment that involves an infinite monkeys. This is a *theory*.
butterfliwashere 1 year ago
@butterfliwashere
This is called a theorem because it is based strictly off of a statistical analysis of probability as the numbers you are working with approach infinity.
The "monkeys" in this example are merely an analogy to the process of randomizing numbers in infinite series until you get a result (in this case a monkey typing Hamlet), therefore it is based off of a already proven mathematical theorem, only under a different name.
zombiehunt00 1 year ago
@zombiehunt00
Delete the "statistical" out of your explanation and you're good to go, because statistics shows the relations between theory and empirics and these empirics aren't present in a system with alleged infinite possibilites.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
INFINITE MONKEYS FTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWYAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
kkkY11111 1 year ago
Aristotle talking about Shakespeare is what's absurd. Timeline? I have no doubts that infinite monkeys could type infinitely long and never come close to even the first chapter of shakespeare. The whole thing is an analogy of evolution and that is not how evolution works. Unless you mean the human monkey, and then it is only valid once and only takes one of them. All the rest are acts of plagiarism. Fucking monkeys!
1010011010is29a 1 year ago
@1010011010is29a fail troll
TheKturner05 1 year ago
Is everyone being sarcastic are you all just not getting it? It doesn't matter that it's monkeys doing the typing, that they can live forever, that they're being fed, that they have appropriate dexterity. We only use "monkeys" in the theorem to denote a random input of keys, because monkeys would not know what they're doing. The point is that given an infinite space to work within, random processes eventually produce systems of order.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
@jessemaurais Not when they only have chaotic tools to work with. It would be like expecting someone to carve the statue of David using nothing but their fingernails in the hard marble. Oh, sure, you'd get orderly CLUSTERS of keystrokes but you ain't gonna get Hamlet. Sorry but monkeys with typewriters is a bad analogy for what you're trying to say. Better you should use conservatives. They have no more understanding of anything than monkeys do but they can hit single keystrokes.
MasterOfSparks 1 year ago
This makes no damn sense. Look at the fingers on those monkeys. Do you think they have the DEXTERITY to type cleanly enough to produce Hamlet? They're hitting CLUSTERS of keys with every stroke. So all you'd end up with is an infinite amount of key clusters not the precise typing required to produce Hamlet. It would make more sense to reconfigure the keyboard and then use fewer monkeys.
MasterOfSparks 1 year ago
@MasterOfSparks fail troll.
TheKturner05 1 year ago
@TheKturner05 Speak English
urasam2 1 year ago
This theory is clearly absurd. If there were an infinite amount of monkeys they would run out of food and water before they could finish writing Hamlet.
C06coolvette 1 year ago
@C06coolvette
obviously you've missed the point.
sammygee17 1 year ago
@sammygee17
Yeah, my point was sarcasm. All in good measure mate.
C06coolvette 1 year ago
@C06coolvette
lol, my bad, couldn't tell ... its something a stupid person would say if they were being serious
sammygee17 1 year ago
no, that it's absurd that a monkey could type hamlet does not prove that there is no infinity. it might be true that there is no real world infinity, but this is not a proof of that.
jffryh 1 year ago
now i'm glad i watched this before reading the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy: "Ford!" he said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out."
motazadam 1 year ago 18
@motazadam Hehe, what a long book that one is. I didn't get to finish it to be honest.
Scytherene122190 1 year ago
@Scytherene122190 i didn't read the sequels or anything, just the first book. and i really enjoyed it
motazadam 10 months ago
No monkey would type for any considerable length of time to rewrite this play. A monkey would rather chew on the type writer than use it as intended.
timejiff 1 year ago
This assumes that the monkey is typing in a truly random fashion.
In fact, he is probably predisposed to typing certain keys more than others, as well as certain patterns. There may be a certain pattern which he never types - for example, maybe it is uncomfortable for him to type the letter 'x' after 'e or something. Therefore his "chance" of typing those letters or patterns could be 0, so he will never type Shakespeare. There is no real randomness except in the quantum world.
culwin 1 year ago
@culwin exactly, thus our universe is not infinite! Not only from this, but our universe began with finite energy, finite cannot go into infinite, and infinite itself cannot exist anyway, it is only a concept.
CNFrostXY 1 year ago
@culwin You dont seem to get infinate, this mean any possibility. What you said is right, that could happen but then one monkey out there proberly wouldn't get tired or do patterns. Infact as weird as this video is, if this universe is really infinate not only would this video be an example but out there a monkey really would be typing a shakespere novel on a computer. Sounds dumb but we go back to infinate stars and planets, so it just makes sense.
F2DGraphics 1 year ago
@F2DGraphics It is you who doesn't understand infinity.
The numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite. However, finding the number 3 between 1 and 2 is an impossibility, regardless of the fact that the numbers are infinite.
culwin 1 year ago
@culwin lol i dont know how that made sense to you. Either way you cannot compare numbers to infinite even if it's an example like that. Numbers are meaningless when it comes to infinite so technically it doesnt matter if 3 cant go before 2 because the numbers themselves are irrelevant.
F2DGraphics 1 year ago
@F2DGraphics Absolute nonsense.
culwin 1 year ago
@culwin I hate to call you wrong, but you are really going against all the greatest minds in science that consider this theory if the Universe truly is inifinate.
F2DGraphics 1 year ago
@F2DGraphics Not really. The great minds like myself understand the concept. Certain physics of the universe apply everywhere, even in infinite space. That means certain things are impossible. As a very simple example, if infinite monkeys flip an infinite number of coins, there is still ZERO chance that any of the coins will ever just defy gravity and fly off into space. According to your logic, such a thing is possible but your logic is flawed.
culwin 1 year ago
@culwin That's irrelevant because the Infinite Monkey Theorem was never meant to produce a physically "impossible" result.
mb1467 1 year ago
@culwin its about highly IMPROBABLE things happening
G0DOFMILK 1 year ago
@G0DOFMILK Do you have a point?
culwin 1 year ago