Huh? So which one of those terms is what you'd call what I described?arjand wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 2:57 pmMathematical infinite is perceived infinite. The observer gives rise to the potential of infinite. It isn't infinite by itself.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 10:23 amJust out of curiosity, by the way, since on your view, infinity can't have a start, what do you call a series that does have a start but that never ends? For example, positive integers, so we start with 1, 2, 3 . . . and never end? You wouldn't say that it's a finite series, would you? What would you call it?
Infinite monkey theorem
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
Infinity as a concept does not have a beginning. It is oneness. There cannot be two infinities.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
I'm not sure I'm following you. You'd call what I described "mathematical infinity" or "perceived infinity," even though infinity as a concept doesn't have a beginning? Are you saying that "mathematical infinity" and " perceived infinity" somehow don't involve the concept of infinity?
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
You can argue that the addition of the potential of infinity by the observer is irrelevant to make mathematics work, however, in the theorem it is used to suggest that there is no need for God or intelligent design. The theorem deviates from the mathematical construct to pose that evolution is driven by random chance.
My argument is therefore that it is required to examine the aspect infinite as how it is used in the theorem, and to determine if it could be used as basis for a claim related to the origin of life (i.e. the perceived intelligent design).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
The more you're typing, the less I know what you're talking about--or the more questions I have.arjand wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 5:34 am Yes, at least not by itself. The calculator ads the potential of infinity to mathematics. A mathematical construct is an idea of the human mind.
You can argue that the addition of the potential of infinity by the observer is irrelevant to make mathematics work, however, in the theorem it is used to suggest that there is no need for God or intelligent design. The theorem deviates from the mathematical construct to pose that evolution is driven by random chance.
My argument is therefore that it is required to examine the aspect infinite as how it is used in the theorem, and to determine if it could be used as basis for a claim related to the origin of life (i.e. the perceived intelligent design).
You don't seem to be really explaining why you'd be saying that "mathematical infinity" or "perceived infinity" don't involve a concept of infinity. It would seem that "infinity" is a misnomer in those terms according to you, then, but a misnomer for what?--we're talking about mathematical or perceived what if we're not talking about infinity? And doesn't it matter how the people using the terms are thinking about them? I'm getting the impression that you might believe that there are somehow "real" or "right" concepts, but that certainly isn't the case.
- green1
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: January 12th, 2020, 6:39 am
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
Thank you all for your comments.
Cheers,
green1
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
A relevant question would be, what is the observer? The observer ads infinity. The series or "perceived infinite" isn't infinity by itself. It is merely a perceived potential that the observer derives from itself.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
Please note that a number of your posts have been disapproved on the basis of:
D.2. All posts need to contribute an on-topic point or on-topic question to the discussion. No single word posts, or meaningless posts. No posts that simply say "yes", "no", "bump", or "I agree".
Other posts have been disapproved because you would make repeat postings two or three times, thinking it had not gone through. You are not the first to do this, and you won't be the last. It's a quirky setup here, but it is at least less infected by mindless fighting than some (which of course is the reason for all the gatekeeping).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
I haven't the faintest idea what that is saying, really. It's sounding increasingly like asylum talk to me.
What's "infinity by itself"? Isn't infinity simply a mathematical (or more broadly/roughly a logical) concept?A relevant question would be, what is the observer? The observer ads infinity. The series or "perceived infinite" isn't infinity by itself. It is merely a perceived potential that the observer derives from itself.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
The observer's mind is the beginning of infinity as how it is used in the theorem or in mathematics. Such a concept of infinite isn't a truth by itself and therefore it cannot be used as a basis to pose that evolution is driven by random chance.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
Just re the very last comment there, there isn't anyone who says that "evolution is driven by random chance."arjand wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:06 am Infinity as a concept doesn't have a beginning. Why would infinite not know an end while it has a beginning? It is nonsensical.
The observer's mind is the beginning of infinity as how it is used in the theorem or in mathematics. Such a concept of infinite isn't a truth by itself and therefore it cannot be used as a basis to pose that evolution is driven by random chance.
The sciences do not posit that the world works via a series of random events. Whether there is anything at all considered random in the sciences is controversial. But what no one argues is that genetic variations occur via a random process.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
The OT started with the following: The infinite monkey theorem suggests that there is no need for God for an intelligent design. It implies that the theorem is used to argue that evolution is (or could be) driven by random chance.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:32 amJust re the very last comment there, there isn't anyone who says that "evolution is driven by random chance."
That assumption may be invalid.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:32 amBut what no one argues is that genetic variations occur via a random process.
Empirical evidence is likely not able to explain evolution, or consciousness. The idea that evolution is driven by random chance is a flawed perspective that originates from a belief in uniformitarianism (dogma), the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
Source: Nature
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
I mean anyone who knows anything at all about science. Anyone who has any credibility academically, etc. Not random Joes on the Internet.arjand wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 2:09 pmThe OT started with the following: The infinite monkey theorem suggests that there is no need for God for an intelligent design. It implies that the theorem is used to argue that evolution is (or could be) driven by random chance.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:32 amJust re the very last comment there, there isn't anyone who says that "evolution is driven by random chance."
It's not an assumption. It's observation of what scientists say. The idea of there even being random quantum phenomena is controversial. If you suggest that there might be any random macro phenomena you're not taken seriously.That assumption may be invalid.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:32 amBut what no one argues is that genetic variations occur via a random process.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
Natural selection is not random, which is why it's called "natural selection" and not "random selection". Genetic variations may be random, but the success of an organism depends on how its genetically inherited traits operate in its current environment. If evolution was random, you might find fish and frogs walking on the hot sand of the Atacama desert, or apes and housecats scuttling around the ocean floor.
- Prof Bulani
- Posts: 367
- Joined: December 1st, 2019, 3:47 pm
Re: Infinite monkey theorem
That's not how infinity works. The set of natural numbers in maths begins at 1, and is an infinitely large set. Infinite in no way implies having no beginning. And has nothing to do with an observer.arjand wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 9:06 am Infinity as a concept doesn't have a beginning. Why would infinite not know an end while it has a beginning? It is nonsensical.
The observer's mind is the beginning of infinity as how it is used in the theorem or in mathematics. Such a concept of infinite isn't a truth by itself and therefore it cannot be used as a basis to pose that evolution is driven by random chance.
This thread ran away on this infinity tangent and seemed to miss the idea of the op. God is not required for Shakespearean-level creativity to exist. The same can be achieved by random events infinitely occurring. But that's not even the process by which Shakespearean-level creativity actually occurred. We don't have a system in which there are infinite monkeys typing forever. We have a system in which Shakespeare emerged in a finite time. The process is different. Just no God was needed.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023