Infinite monkey theorem

[Felix]

green1: The infinite monkey theorem suggests that there is no need for God for an intelligent design. A monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

And where did the monkeys and their typewriters come from?

It has nothing to do with intelligent design or the lack of it, because a medium is needed in which so-called random activity can occur, and to exist at all, that medium must be stable. In other words, there is really no such thing as random action because there can be no action at all in a vacuum - you can't build a house in mid-air.

[green1]

I suspect that green1's point is that it takes an intelligent being (in that case a human) to recognise when the monkeys have stumbled on the Shakespeare. But I could be wrong.

Hi Steve, yes this is what meant. Thanks.

green1

[Terrapin Station]

I suspect that green1's point is that it takes an intelligent being (in that case a human) to recognise when the monkeys have stumbled on the Shakespeare. But I could be wrong.

Hi Steve, yes this is what meant. Thanks.

green1

What's the broader point with that, though? It would take an intelligent being to recognize when the monkeys have stumbled on Shakespeare, which implies that . . . ?

[green1]

Hi Steve, yes this is what meant. Thanks.

green1

What's the broader point with that, though? It would take an intelligent being to recognize when the monkeys have stumbled on Shakespeare, which implies that . . . ?

This would mean that the “argument from design” still works.

green1

[Steve3007]

Another way of looking at it:

If (for the sake of argument) the Universe was infinitely large, and therefore contained an infinite quantity of matter, and therefore contained an infinite number of planetary systems, and therefore contained an infinite number of planets with life, and therefore contained an infinite number of planets with intelligent life:

Any conceivable sequence of letters, which to us might seem random, is the cultural equivalent of "The Works of Shakespeare" to at least one of those civilisations (actually, to an infinitely large subset of them). So the very first thing that the monkeys type is "The Works of Shakespeare" to somebody.

[Steve3007]

This would mean that the “argument from design” still works.

Which is why when h_k_s asked a question beginning with this:

If this is the only thing that you are basing your atheist faith upon...

My comment was this:

While you're at it, ask him (or her) when he's going to stop beating his wife.

i.e. His question has an unfounded implied premise (like the classic wife beating example). The question of whether you are an atheist or a theist is irrelevant. The argument you're making, for the purposes of this topic. is essentially a theistic one.

[green1]

Another way of looking at it:

If (for the sake of argument) the Universe was infinitely large, and therefore contained an infinite quantity of matter, and therefore contained an infinite number of planetary systems, and therefore contained an infinite number of planets with life, and therefore contained an infinite number of planets with intelligent life:

Any conceivable sequence of letters, which to us might seem random, is the cultural equivalent of "The Works of Shakespeare" to at least one of those civilisations (actually, to an infinitely large subset of them). So the very first thing that the monkeys type is "The Works of Shakespeare" to somebody.

I have difficulties understanding how your idea applies to God creating life on a planet.

green1

[Terrapin Station]

What's the broader point with that, though? It would take an intelligent being to recognize when the monkeys have stumbled on Shakespeare, which implies that . . . ?

This would mean that the “argument from design” still works.

green1

Taking the notion as an argument against "the argument from design" (it doesn't work as that as I noted as no one is positing that the world works via random selection of sets of limited variables), the idea isn't that the present, contingent world that we're in is a quickly-changing set of randomly determined states, the idea is that each random "text" produced (by the monkeys) is analogous to a universe life cycle (such as the big bang to a big crunch or whatever), each with its own unique properties. So there's no need for anything to be picked out of the stuff produced. We just happen to be in the midst of one particular text.

[h_k_s]

This would mean that the “argument from design” still works.

Which is why when h_k_s asked a question beginning with this:

If this is the only thing that you are basing your atheist faith upon...

My comment was this:

While you're at it, ask him (or her) when he's going to stop beating his wife.

i.e. His question has an unfounded implied premise (like the classic wife beating example). The question of whether you are an atheist or a theist is irrelevant. The argument you're making, for the purposes of this topic. is essentially a theistic one.

This thread tangent is now a monstrous web of woven implications.

Loaded questions are all Sophist tricks.

And according to Plato we should avoid Sophist tricks like the plague. I agree with Plato on this.

[Terrapin Station]

Which is why when h_k_s asked a question beginning with this:



My comment was this:


i.e. His question has an unfounded implied premise (like the classic wife beating example). The question of whether you are an atheist or a theist is irrelevant. The argument you're making, for the purposes of this topic. is essentially a theistic one.

This thread tangent is now a monstrous web of woven implications.

Loaded questions are all Sophist tricks.

And according to Plato we should avoid Sophist tricks like the plague. I agree with Plato on this.

Plato was a great writer but I don't agree with him about much.

I see his knocks on the Sophists as being akin to trying to undermine competitors.

[h_k_s]

This thread tangent is now a monstrous web of woven implications.

Loaded questions are all Sophist tricks.

And according to Plato we should avoid Sophist tricks like the plague. I agree with Plato on this.

Plato was a great writer but I don't agree with him about much.

I see his knocks on the Sophists as being akin to trying to undermine competitors.

I don't agree with Plato about much either, so I agree with you on that.

The Sophists were like any other lying, rhetorical body. Politicians, lawyers, the PTA --- they all fall into this boat.

[Terrapin Station]

Plato was a great writer but I don't agree with him about much.

I see his knocks on the Sophists as being akin to trying to undermine competitors.

I don't agree with Plato about much either, so I agree with you on that.

The Sophists were like any other lying, rhetorical body. Politicians, lawyers, the PTA --- they all fall into this boat.

Was there any good reason to believe they weren't being honest?

[h_k_s]

I don't agree with Plato about much either, so I agree with you on that.

The Sophists were like any other lying, rhetorical body. Politicians, lawyers, the PTA --- they all fall into this boat.

Was there any good reason to believe they weren't being honest?

Do you mean "they, the Sophists"?

The answer is that as advocates and rhetoricians, the Sophists probably used whatever arguments they could to win. And emotional arguments are very powerful and resonate with most people.

If you read Jerry Spence's book "How To Argue And Win Every Time," he too emphasizes emotional arguments as a strategy for winning.

However according to Aristotle and also to modern debate rules, emotional arguments are a fallacy.

So it's not so much a matter of truth or falsehood; it is more of a matter of logical integrity and ethics.

[Steve3007]

Loaded questions are all Sophist tricks.

I didn't refer to loaded questions. I referred to a question with a false premise. Maybe you mean the same thing?

If you see such questions as "Sophist tricks", why did you ask one?

[Terrapin Station]

Was there any good reason to believe they weren't being honest?

Do you mean "they, the Sophists"?

The answer is that as advocates and rhetoricians, the Sophists probably used whatever arguments they could to win. And emotional arguments are very powerful and resonate with most people.

If you read Jerry Spence's book "How To Argue And Win Every Time," he too emphasizes emotional arguments as a strategy for winning.

However according to Aristotle and also to modern debate rules, emotional arguments are a fallacy.

So it's not so much a matter of truth or falsehood; it is more of a matter of logical integrity and ethics.

Insofar as we're familiar with the Sophists' arguments, they didn't have much to do with emotion.