Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:43 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6924
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1029
Thanked: 1976 times in 1592 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
DWill wrote:
Perhaps I just have a hard time getting my head around this, believing that no matter how much time is available, the complete works of Shakespeare would be duplicated in both content and form, with all the parts apportioned to the correct speakers, the poems set off line by line, stage directions given, etc. No, I have to stay with my feeling that even infinity can't deliver that product in a random process.

I wonder whether even a single sonnet would result.


I don't think there truly is a way to get your head around it. You have to approach it differently than trying to wrap your head around it. Basically, if an event is possible within the limitations of physics - any mention of probability aside - then it would happen an infinite number of times given an infinite time period. Probability doesn't apply within the concept of infinity. The smallest possible probability you could possibly imagine would be inevitable. That's the nature of infinity. If your mind rejects that, then you're reacting normally to the concept of infinity. It's a nonsensical concept.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Cattleman, geo, Harry Marks
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4190
Location: NC
Thanks: 1668
Thanked: 1732 times in 1324 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
Interbane wrote:
It's a nonsensical concept.

"Infinity" is a conceptual tool for thinking about the abstract. I don't think there's anything in the real world represented by infinity, unlike, say, "12" which we can see represented by a carton of eggs. That means the monkeys-on-typewriters thought experiment must be seen as an abstract idea only. Given enough time, really improbable things can happen. That's as far as it goes.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 164
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Thanks: 15
Thanked: 70 times in 58 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 5

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
LanDroid wrote:
Many in this thread have forgotten that Stahrwe proved infinity = -1/12. A -1/12 number of monkeys couldn't even snap one keystroke in -1/12 period of time, therefore the whole experiment is ridiculous.

Is there a thread regarding that -1/12 thing? I can see something that looks mathy in stahrwe's signature, but that signature tells me nothing.



Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:08 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Authors are MY fans!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1829
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 53
Thanked: 620 times in 484 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
Yes there was a thread on Stahrwe's signature equation probably a year ago. If you go on youtube there are videos with the "proof", IIRC they use quite a bit of subtraction in the calculations. :?



Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 164
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Thanks: 15
Thanked: 70 times in 58 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 5

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
Is this it?



EDIT: I just watched the video. I find it very unconvincing, but I'll just take their word for it.



Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:24 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3563
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1149 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
The monkeys are irrelevant.

The point being that randomness plus infinity means any pattern of things that has happened could happen again.

The plays are an arrangement of symbols in a certain order. They are possible, because there they are. We've seen them.

If there is a situation where these symbols are being randomly placed one after the other (like a monkey hitting the keyboard) then the pattern that someone has arranged on purpose can also arise by accident.

If I type the letter "A" with intention and a chimp hits the letter "A" by accident both produce the same result. Supposing a keyboard with only 30 keys, then the monkey would have a 1/30 chance of hitting the "A" key first. If I type "AB" the chimp has a 1/900 chance of doing the same. The longer the sentence the longer the odds (in true randomness). As long as it's possible it will happen. the chimps and typewriter sets up a situation that makes something that is naturally impossible (due to time scales) possible, by removing the time scale limitation.

With intention I can form sentences and meaning like you see here on the first try. But these sentences too are just a string of effects that are possible. The longer the string the less likely for a random set of key slaps to produce the same effect. But as it IS possible to produce this string of symbols by intent, it is also possible to produce them by accident through random generation. The chances just grow longer with the length of the writing.

The thing to realize here is that ANY string of symbols is exactly as unlikely as any other (if we are talking true randomness). These two strings of symbols exactly as unlikely to occur if generated by a random symbol generator.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
lilililililililililililililililililililililil

They are the same length, but one is arranged in a meaningful pattern and the other is not. This is how entropy works. Every pile of sand is a unique arrangement of particles. They all look the same to us, but each is unique and dumping the same pile of sand over and over again a zillion times produces the same likelihoods as "a chimp writing the works of Shakespeare". That is, one particular pile of sand is unlikely. But A pile of sand is certain.

We pay attention to the pile of symbols that mean something to us, but they are no less likely than any other pile of symbols that are generated randomly.

If you were looking for the complete works of "oops I sat on my keyboard for half an hour" you would have to wait as long for that to surface as you would for Shakespeare if it was the same length.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
geo, Harry Marks
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Authors are MY fans!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1829
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 53
Thanked: 620 times in 484 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
Murmur wrote:
I just watched the video. I find it very unconvincing, but I'll just take their word for it.

Yes that's the video. Notice he calculates by subtracting a number series from the series we're interested in, twiddles a bit more, then states "which implies S = -1/12." Implies? That sure does not sound like a proof. Plus when he's asked what if you summed up all the integers up to a Googleplex (10 to the google power), he answers "You'd get a huge number."

How 'bout this conversation.
Me: I will pay you an infinite number of dollars for your car, waddya say?
You: Cool, let's do it now!
Me: Give me 9 cents.
You: What? OK, here you are, 9 cents.
Me: Great, now we're even, give me the car keys.
You: WTF?
Me: Yes indeed it has been implied that an infinite number of dollars = $- 1/12. 1/12 of a dollar = 8.3 cents. The negative part means you pay 8.3 cents to me, which you did. Done deal, now gimme the keys.
You: WTF? Get outta here before I call the cops!

BTW, I've seen other "proofs" showing infinity = 0, infinity = pi, and infinity = 5. :x



Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Better Thread Count than Your Best Linens


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 632
Thanks: 476
Thanked: 269 times in 222 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
Murmur wrote:
It's a thought experiment. It takes place in a make-believe universe that mirrors our own in very minor ways that we care about. I don't understand why it's necessary for me to explain this.

After rather enjoying the goofy discussion leading up to this, the final sentence above earned some kind of prize in my mind. Those who have actually had to think about infinity (which pretty much makes anyone's head hurt) have trouble grasping the process by which less-ripped minds bounce off it.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.



Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:19 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6924
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1029
Thanked: 1976 times in 1592 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Randomness isn't enough to make a Shakespeare
geo wrote:
"Infinity" is a conceptual tool for thinking about the abstract. I don't think there's anything in the real world represented by infinity, unlike, say, "12" which we can see represented by a carton of eggs. That means the monkeys-on-typewriters thought experiment must be seen as an abstract idea only. Given enough time, really improbable things can happen. That's as far as it goes.


For every number we know, there's the instance of the number, then the abstraction of the number. Our abstract set of numbers includes many that we've never seen instances of.

Sometimes we can manipulate abstractions and say something about the world. But it's not a given. It still requires evidence. Einstein's manipulation of numbers related to the speed of light and quantifications of energy still required experiments and testing.

You can't simply manipulate numbers and take the result as proof of something novel about the world. I can manipulate numbers and confirm that a certain sized beam will support a certain amount of weight, but that is nothing novel. The manipulations have been tested and retested countless times.

I don't understand the fascination with -1/12, it's just playing with abstractions divorced from instance. Show me something real.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
geo
Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2017. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank