The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    it is also somewhat misleading

    …what? No it isn’t. Restricting the premise from infinite to any finite amount of time completely negates it. That doesn’t prove it’s “misleading”, it proves anyone that thinks it does has no idea what they’re talking about.

  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I just listened to a podcast about assembly theory and I think that it kind of relates here too, though maybe not. If we start randomly generating text that is the lenght of the Hamlet, then Hamlet itself would be one of the possible, finite number of possibilities that could be generated within these parameters. Interesting theory nevertheless.

    If we think about a screwdriver, the theory would argue that it couldn’t simply appear out of nowhere because its structure is too specific and complex to have come into existence by chance alone. For that screwdriver to exist, a multitude of precise processes are required: extracting raw materials, refining them, shaping metal, designing the handle, etc. The probability of all these steps happening in the right order, spontaneously, is essentially zero. Assembly theory would say that each stage in the creation of a screwdriver represents a selection event, where choices are made, materials are transformed, and functions are refined.

    What makes assembly theory especially intriguing is that it offers a framework to distinguish between things that could arise naturally, like a rock or even an organic molecule, and things that bear the hallmarks of a directed process. To put it simply, a screwdriver couldn’t exist without a long sequence of assembly steps that are improbable to arise by chance, thereby making its existence a hallmark of intentional design or, at the very least, a directed process.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    There was a plank computer post here last couple of days. It showed an atomic sized computer performing one crack attempt every 10^-44 seconds would take a 95 character alphabet 100 years to crack a 121 character password.

    Monkeys take up 1m^3. 10^105 bigger than a plank length. Typing 120wpm is 10^43 slower. Ignoring punctuation and spaces and capitalization, a 26 character alphabet allows for about 52 more characters than a 95 character alphabet.

    Bottom line, monkeys can’t come anywhere close to being able to crack a 100 character password from a 26 character alphabet.

    • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Okay but here me out, what if we 10^43 more monkeys to balance out the speed?

      In fact, let’s push this to an extreme. We get enough monkeys that their mass turns them all into one black hole. Inside the black hole, the laws of physics get all fucked. Next we need to somehow dissolve the event horizon as explained in This Kurzgesagt video. Once that happens and we are left with a bare singularity, anything can pop out of it, including a copy of Hamlet.

      The monkeys, however, will very likely be dead.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    So the secret to this thought experiment is to understand that infinite is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is…

    The lifespan of the universe from big bang to heat death (the longest scenario) is a blink of an eye to eternity. The breadth and size of the universe – not just what we can see, but how big it is with all the inflation bits, even as its expanding faster than the speed of light – just a mote in a sunbeam compared to infinity.

    Infinity itself looks flat and uninteresting. Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity – distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless. And thus we don’t imagine just how vast and literally impossible infinity is.

    With an infinite number of monkeys, not only will you get one that will write out a Hamlet script perfectly the first time, formatted exactly as you need it, but you’ll have an infinite number of them. Yes, the percentage of the total will be very small (though not infinitesimally so), and even if you do a partial search you’re going to get a lot of false hits. But 0.000001% of ∞ is still ∞. ∞ / [Graham’s Number] = ∞

    It’s a lot of monkeys.

    Now, because the monkeys and typewriters and Shakespeare thought experiment isn’t super useful unless you’re dealing with angels and devils (they get to play with infinities. The real world is all normal numbers) the model has been paired down in Dawkin’s Weasel ( on Wikipedia ) and Weasel Programs which demonstrate how evolution (specifically biological evolution) isn’t random rather has random features, but natural selection is informed by, well, selection. Specifically survivability in a harsh environment. When slow rabbits fail to breed, the rabbits will mutate to be faster over generations.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      What caught me out recently was infinity minus infinity.

      It does not equal zero. Instead it breaks your sorting algorithm.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      infinite amount of monkeys could produce infinite amount of information, i dont see the point

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        The original thought experiment had to do with playing around with infinity, which is a whole field of mathematics with a lot of crossover. It raises questions like whether we can assume any fixed-length sequence of digits can be found somewhere in the mantissa of a given irrational number (say, π).

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    I’ve read there are so many permutations of a standard deck of 52 playing cards, that in all the times decks have been shuffled through history, there’s almost no chance any given arrangement has ever been repeated. If we could teach monkeys to shuffle cards I wonder how long it would take them to do it.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Maybe it’s becaue scientists have very poor imagination of the universe.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Fuuuuck there goes my plan to get this monkey to write Hamlet within the lifetime of the universe…

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    But we aren’t talking about one monkey. We are talking about infinite monkeys.

    Infinity is already a loaded concept in our universe.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    If a tree folds in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

    For this experiment scientists recruited Gilbert, no one really pays much attention to him, and it’s assumed the universe won’t either.