understanding probability theory... Infinite monkey theorem

[goobee]

You guys have been debating this off and on since 2006 and haven't solved it yet? This is going to be a long infinity.

I propose removing all keys except the 26 alpha and space bar keys which will increase the probability of text getting typed.

 

[chris1235]

Is this only a "tech"/statistical issue? As I understand it, although there is a possibility that a specified string will NOT be produced randomly during infinity, in the world of statistical probability that outcome is nevertheless considered a certainty. But there is something intuitively wrong. The work of art is not a random string. It has meaning. That's why it's not only possible that it won't be reproduced randomly during infinity, it's certain. Something that has meaning is of a different order. It's not subject to statistical probability.

 

[chris1235]

This imaginary scenario arose, of course, in the context of trying to imagine how DNA could have arisen by chance. Infinity isn't invoked there - unless you allow for infinite universes.

 

[chris1235]

The meaning of a work of art is provided by human consciousness. Any "meaning" for DNA would have to be provided by universal consciousness. Some people think the universe is made of consciousness. I'm just saying, the infinite monkey theorem has aspects other than statistical probability.

 

[sandorski]

Is this only a "tech"/statistical issue? As I understand it, although there is a possibility that a specified string will NOT be produced randomly during infinity, in the world of statistical probability that outcome is nevertheless considered a certainty. But there is something intuitively wrong. The work of art is not a random string. It has meaning. That's why it's not only possible that it won't be reproduced randomly during infinity, it's certain. Something that has meaning is of a different order. It's not subject to statistical probability.

No. Character strings do not have Meaning. We place Meaning on to Character strings.

 

[sandorski]

The meaning of a work of art is provided by human consciousness. Any "meaning" for DNA would have to be provided by universal consciousness. Some people think the universe is made of consciousness. I'm just saying, the infinite monkey theorem has aspects other than statistical probability.

There is no Meaning in DNA. You're just spouting gobbly beloved patriot.

 

[chris1235]

Thus spake Statto

 

[chris1235]

Although you might be right. After all, although we can understand the concept of infinity, we can't truly imagine it; we don't know what the universe is made of, or what consciousness is; and we don't know how DNA could have arisen (none of the several theories are strong or testable).

 

[sandorski]

Although you might be right. After all, although we can understand the concept of infinity, we can't truly imagine it; we don't know what the universe is made of, or what consciousness is; and we don't know how DNA could have arisen (none of the several theories are strong or testable).

We have a pretty damn good idea what Consciousness is, what the Universe is made of, and a good start to knowing how DNA came about. Again, you're speaking gobbly beloved patriot and are just plain wrong.

Stop being easily impressed by the Con Artist Deepak Chopra and the like. Peppering your language with Sciency intellectual words and incredulous mannerisms is not a replacement for Science or Intellectual Thought. It is Style over Substance.

 

[chris1235]

Oh dear. Argument by hubris. I bow to your God-like superior knowledge, oh Great One.

 

[chris1235]

BTW, no need to bother Mr Chopra - it's all my own work.

 

[sandorski]

BTW, no need to bother Mr Chopra - it's all my own work.

Like Chopra, it's not impressive.

 

[chris1235]

Anyone not possessed of omniscience might be interested in the UK Guardian article "Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?" - https://www.theguardian.com/science...ds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness. If Chopra is off the menu, how about leading neuroscientist Christof Koch and his idea of panpsychism?

 

[chris1235]

The infinite monkeys thought exercise arose at the time of the development of the theory of evolution. Creationists said, How could the wonderful human being, the crown of creation, have arisen through chance mutations? The evolutionists said, given a very large number of mutations over a very long time, it would happen. Even the works of Shakespeare would be produced by random process over a very long time. OK, over infinity.

 

[chris1235]

But infinity is a slippery concept, even in the world of maths.

 

[sandorski]

The infinite monkeys thought exercise arose at the time of the development of the theory of evolution. Creationists said, How could the wonderful human being, the crown of creation, have arisen through chance mutations? The evolutionists said, given a very large number of mutations over a very long time, it would happen. Even the works of Shakespeare would be produced by random process over a very long time. OK, over infinity.

No, it wasn't. It has been used to counter Creationist claims of Evolution being extremely improbable, but the Theorem itself was to show that the improbable is assured to occur within an Infinite amount of time. Thbe theorem was first introduced some 50-60 years after Darwins Theory of Evolution. However, forms of it were first pondered in Ancient Greece.

 

[sandorski]

But infinity is a slippery concept, even in the world of maths.

How?

 

[chris1235]

Infinite sets, and the idea of different sizes of infinity.

 

[John Connor]

All this is is like the probability of winning the lotto.