These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

If Infinite Monkey Were Typing On A Computer…

Author
2bhammered
Cyberpunk 2077
#21 - 2012-04-20 08:03:57 UTC
Evolution is by design, question is if it is by intelligent design or not and if it is by intelligent design then let me quote - this horrible sitcom!
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#22 - 2012-04-20 12:47:19 UTC
2bhammered wrote:
Evolution is by design

There's no "design" in evolution, there's just emergence.
Evolution does not "go towards" something specific, it just tends to increase "fitness" (it's actually much more complicated, but this approximation should do for the purpose of this conversation).
Evolution can lead to dead ends (where no further evolution is possible unless conditions radically shift), and it can even result in extinction if the right combination of condition shifts happen to occur.
Evolution is not a one-time process, it keeps going and going and going and going...
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-04-20 13:25:28 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Evolution is not a one-time process, it keeps going and going and going and going...



like duracell batteries.


anyways, Akita is right, and I believe that all that an infinite number of monkeys would make would be just an ininite large amount of monkey poop.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Whitehound
#24 - 2012-04-20 15:39:39 UTC
Akita T wrote:
There's no "design" in evolution, there's just emergence.
Evolution does not "go towards" something specific, it just tends to increase "fitness" (it's actually much more complicated, but this approximation should do for the purpose of this conversation).
Evolution can lead to dead ends (where no further evolution is possible unless conditions radically shift), and it can even result in extinction if the right combination of condition shifts happen to occur.
Evolution is not a one-time process, it keeps going and going and going and going...

Who cares? If it was a design then I would call it pretty. And when you think it tends to increase fitness then it does go towards fitness. I think evolution supports life. Races then do not go extinct because of evolution, but because nature wins over the evolution (of life) and life itself. For example, if all goes well then prey and predator keep in a balance, and when draughts change the food supply, continents split apart or asteroids hit the Earth then it can happen for races to die out. You then do not see the evolution of life taking place on other planets, because nature did not allow for it to start.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-04-20 19:04:32 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
From what I know about computers and mathematics (limited as it may be) a random sequence of 1 and 0 spit out of a computer will never render a perfect rendered and functioning EVE Online as we see it today. I don’t think that you could even expect to see pong.



To me it is like saying “The value of pi must be calculable if you calculate it to infinity”.
In reality, that does not have to be true (nor does it seem to be true)

…and yet we are told otherwise when it comes theories regarding monkeys, random number generators and infinity. Why?


What do you think?



1) You're just trying to jump right into the big stuff as true/false. Start with flipping coins. Take a sequence like Heads, Tails, Heads. Now do sets of three coin flips until you get it. Move on to dice, say 3 - 1 - 6. Roll three dice until you get that combo in that order. There is no difference between that and the monkeys putting out Shakespeare except scale and time.

2) A calculation is an action with a definable end. You cannot 'calculate to infinity'. You can USE infinity in A CALCULATION but you cannot calculate TO infinity, because the two terms contradict each other. It would not be 'calculable' because the calculation could never be completed.

3) 1 and 2 do not contradict. Saying it would take the Monkeys an 'infinite' amount of time is inaccurate and not what the theory states. The theory uses the word to indicate simply that you don't put a time limit on them and allow it to happen no matter how long it takes. Just like it will most likely take more tries with dice than with coins, it may take a VERY long time, but not an infinite amount of time.
It could also be said to mean, that within an infinite amount of time it is guaranteed that you will eventually get every possible combination.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-04-20 19:14:24 UTC
Akita T wrote:
2bhammered wrote:
Evolution is by design

There's no "design" in evolution, there's just emergence.
Evolution does not "go towards" something specific...


This is only true in the middle. People who study evolution never want to talk about the beginning. Abiogenesis (SP?) is basically science doing a gigantic shoulder shrug because they have no ******* clue.

Everything in the known universe is dying. Every star is burning or flashing out, every orbit decays, all matter is going to end up drifting cold and dark forever. Every chemical reaction results in simpler and more stable results unless you add energy, which must be released from something else. Every time you store energy, it takes more to store it than you stored.

One day some little thing came about that did not break down, did not get colder, did not fall apart, and did not get simpler. It was a thing that metabolized something in it's environment, releasing stored energy for itself to use, and it replicated.

Natural selection principles fall apart INSTANTLY when something has no predecessor. Evolution does not apply to the FIRST example. Tat is not simply 'emergence'. That is a complete shift in the nature of matter that created a schism between what is alive and not alive. What is alive wants -WANTS- to live and continue to burn energy from what is not. It has wanted -WANTED- to and strived to since before there was such a thing as DNA. Since before there was a nervous system or a brain.

I am not religious, but if someone told me God stuck his finger in the muck a few billion years ago and named one little spec 'Adam' that'd be the most likely story I've heard so far, for the beginning of life. If you have some article where we can replicate that and make a self-sustained new beginning of life then do link it, but last I heard we were arguing about cell-like shapes in lava flows and stuck on 'what came first' between metabolism and something else.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-04-20 19:50:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
VKhaun Vex wrote:



1) You're just trying to jump right into the big stuff as true/false. Start with flipping coins. Take a sequence like Heads, Tails, Heads. Now do sets of three coin flips until you get it. Move on to dice, say 3 - 1 - 6. Roll three dice until you get that combo in that order. There is no difference between that and the monkeys putting out Shakespeare except scale and time.
.



There is a big difference. In the case of the coin, the weight of reality is forcing heads or tails. It must fall on one of two options. Even though dice may seem more complex at first glance, you are still dealing with only two objects, they just have more sides and thus more possible configurations. The value however is still based upon two elements. There are more combinations yes, but there are still only two.



A completely random sequence of 1's and 0's spit out into infinity, may be like that two sided coin, and there may be a forced landing of 1 or 0 in the outcome, but the science of generating computer code it is not that simple. Observe: poke a random hole in a map with a pin, do so again and again into "infinity" and eventually you will have landed on your home town. Yes, this is to be expected. But if that map has no set size, and your random poke is truly random, there is no reason to assume that you will ever land on your home town. You can just keep on poking forever and ever, and never land on the place of your birth.



No matter how many monkeys you sit in front of a computer, it is still a monkey. No monkey will ever type out Hamlet for any reason. It does not matter if you have infinite monkeys sitting in front of infinite computers, because each monkey has the same chance of not achieving the desired goal at go. Having more of them does not increase the chances because the chance of each monkey doing it is static. Basically, infinite monkeys typing keys into infinity, is really no different the one monkey typing into infinity in terms of increasing the chances of ultimately generating hamlet. Infinity is simply infinity.






So:

A 1 and 0 may seem like two sides of a coin, but they are creating bits, bytes, and megabytes in a very specific sequence. Although it is possible that a random number generator could create the code that makes eve online by accident, it is most certainly not inevitable. The numerical possibilities are so great that the exact conditions necessary may never be met. Chaos is not by definition generating every possible combination, it is more chaotic then that. It is totally random. As the value grows so does the impossibility of reaching a desired outcome. That is why a monkey can accidentally type out a "the" or a "four" but it will never accidentally write a novel.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#28 - 2012-04-20 21:20:11 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:

[...]
One day some little thing came about that did not break down, did not get colder, did not fall apart, and did not get simpler. It was a thing that metabolized something in it's environment, releasing stored energy for itself to use, and it replicated.

Natural selection principles fall apart INSTANTLY when something has no predecessor. Evolution does not apply to the FIRST example. Tat is not simply 'emergence'. That is a complete shift in the nature of matter that created a schism between what is alive and not alive. What is alive wants -WANTS- to live and continue to burn energy from what is not. It has wanted -WANTED- to and strived to since before there was such a thing as DNA. Since before there was a nervous system or a brain.

[...]

If you have some article where we can replicate that and make a self-sustained new beginning of life then do link it, but last I heard we were arguing about cell-like shapes in lava flows and stuck on 'what came first' between metabolism and something else.

Well, I'd say start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis and keep going through the links.

"1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
[...] reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted in the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than the five originally discovered."

"Apart from the Miller–Urey experiment, the next most important step in research on prebiotic organic synthesis was the demonstration by Joan Oró that the nucleic acid purine base, adenine, was formed by heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions. In support of abiogenesis in eutectic ice, more recent work demonstrated the formation of s-triazines (alternative nucleobases), pyrimidines (including cytosine and uracil), and adenine from urea solutions subjected to freeze-thaw cycles under a reductive atmosphere (with spark discharges as an energy source)."

"Sol Spiegelman aimed to find the simplest life form by taking advantage of evolution's natural selection process. His new life form, Spiegelman's Monster, had a genome with just 218 bases. Manfred Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a life form with just 48 or 54 nucleotides. M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen's laboratory accidentally discovered that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster"

"A simple mechanism to explain the replication of RNA and DNA without the use of enzymes can also be given within the same thermodynamic framework by assuming that life arose when the temperature of the primitive seas had cooled to somewhat below the denaturing temperature of RNA or DNA (based on the ratio of 18O/16O found in cherts of the Barberton greenstone belt of South Africa of about 3.5 to 3.2 Ga., surface temperatures are predicted to have been around 70±15 °C, similar to RNA or DNA denaturing temperatures). During the night, the surface water temperature would be below the denaturing temperature and single strand RNA/DNA could act as a template for the formation of double strand RNA/DNA. During the daylight hours, RNA and DNA would absorb UV light and convert this directly to heating of the ocean surface, raising the local temperature enough to allow for denaturing of RNA and DNA. The copying process would be repeated during the cool period overnight. Such a temperature assisted mechanism of replication bears similarity to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a routine laboratory procedure to multiply DNA segments. Michaelian suggests that traditional origin of life research, expecting to describe the emergence of life from near-equilibrium conditions, is erroneous and that non-equilibrium conditions must be considered, in particular, the importance of entropy production to the emergence of life."

"While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor."

"The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses."

"It is known that phospholipids form lipid bilayers in water while under agitation – the same structure as in cell membranes. These molecules were not present on early Earth, however other amphiphilic long chain molecules also form membranes. Furthermore, these bodies may expand (by insertion of additional lipids), and under excessive expansion may undergo spontaneous splitting which preserves the same size and composition of lipids in the two progenies."



So, yeah, we don't know EXACTLY how life on THIS planet started, but we have quite a few workable models as to how life COULD start in general.
It might be extremely slow at first (it literally took hundreds of millions of years to go from nothing to single cells, and several more to go to multi-cell) and maybe even unlikely, but once whatever you can call "life" kicks into gear, watch out.
:P
Whitehound
#29 - 2012-04-20 22:36:17 UTC
Akita T wrote:
So, yeah, we don't know EXACTLY how life on THIS planet started, but we have quite a few workable models as to how life COULD start in general.
It might be extremely slow at first (it literally took hundreds of millions of years to go from nothing to single cells, and several more to go to multi-cell) and maybe even unlikely, but once whatever you can call "life" kicks into gear, watch out.
:P

Yeah, watch out. Evolution can lead to walls of text.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-04-21 00:17:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I think Akita T missed VKhaun Vex's point a little bit, but at least she did it in a wiki warrior sort of way. That's a good thing right?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Gavin DeVries
JDI Industries
#31 - 2012-04-21 04:23:11 UTC
It was once theorized that if you had an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of typewriters, they would eventually manage to reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

PVP is a question with no single right answer, but a lot of wrong ones.

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-04-21 11:49:19 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
VKhaun Vex wrote:



1) You're just trying to jump right into the big stuff as true/false. Start with flipping coins. Take a sequence like Heads, Tails, Heads. Now do sets of three coin flips until you get it. Move on to dice, say 3 - 1 - 6. Roll three dice until you get that combo in that order. There is no difference between that and the monkeys putting out Shakespeare except scale and time.
.


A completely random sequence of 1's and 0's spit out into infinity, may be like that two sided coin, and there may be a forced landing of 1 or 0 in the outcome, but the science of generating computer code it is not that simple. Observe: poke a random hole in a map with a pin, do so again and again into "infinity" and eventually you will have landed on your home town. Yes, this is to be expected. But if that map has no set size, and your random poke is truly random, there is no reason to assume that you will ever land on your home town.

Infinite tries vs infinite size could be an interesting conversation. The answer is not immediately obvious to me.

But code is not infinite. There are only so many characters available to type in any particular spot, and the code is only so many characters long. It is exactly like dice and coins, just more sides (characters possible in a location) and more dice rolled at once (number of characters that need to line up.). Binary especially would be a VERY large set.

You use the word Chaos like it's an elemental force, but there's really no such thing. When you flip a coin you have a one in two chance of getting heads. There is a calculable chance to flip a coin and come up with the exact combination of any program in binary. That chance will clearly be VERY slim, but given infinite tries it WILL happen.





Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I think Akita T missed VKhaun Vex's point a little bit, but at least she did it in a wiki warrior sort of way. That's a good thing right?

A lot of bit. But Akita T is awesome, and the wall of text is worth reading for those who aren't familiar with the subject.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-04-21 13:24:38 UTC
well in the end it doesn't really matter how we became, because we're all space dust anyways.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#34 - 2012-04-21 19:46:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I think Akita T missed VKhaun Vex's point a little bit, but at least she did it in a wiki warrior sort of way. That's a good thing right?

A lot of bit. But Akita T is awesome, and the wall of text is worth reading for those who aren't familiar with the subject.

Well, I suppose part of the point was that if one REALLY wants to find circumstantial evidence for the existence of a deity, it might suffice to realize how unlikely it is anything resembling life as we know it would have arisen spontaneously in one fell swoop, and tend to conclude "somebody did it" would be an attractive answer.
The other part, I suspect, was how what we call "life" tends to seemingly try to oppose the laws of thermodynamics by maintaining or decreasing entropy in their immediate environment, whereas normally, entropy should only go up.

The thing is, while "life as we know it" is unlikely to be the only kind of life that can arise and then evolve. If nothing else, countless sci-fi examples try to drive the point across that life as we even barely imagine it might possibly exist, and at least a handful of those sci-fi examples have at least some basis in reality (not the uber-simplified sci-fi versions, but still, you get the idea). In fact, it might be that "life as we know it" is only a very small subset of "life as it could exist".
For all we know, the galaxy - or, for that matter, the entire universe - could be teaming, chock-full of life, of many different types, some which we haven't even imagined yet. Galaxies themselves (or even the universe itself) could as well be living beings, but on timescales so staggering we can barely comprehend even when pointed out, or each individual particle could be an entire universe in itself, but that's something best pondered in an intoxicated state. For now, let's stick to time and spatial scales more easily grasped by the human mind.

Also, what many people forget, the thing about entropy only makes sense when we're talking closed systems (isolated environments, no transfer of matter nor energy across the boundaries). Obviously, other than in theory, even if we don't quite go down to heisenbergian precision levels, there is no such thing as a "closed system" (maybe other than the entire universe, and even that is still up for debate). Even the eventual heat death of the universe is a thing we're not quite so certain to be inevitable anymore - in a roundabout fashion, for reasons best not explored for now, there are people that are convinced the universe itself goes towards a lower average entropy, sort of breaking the laws of thermodynamics, if we assume the universe itself is all that there is, but again, that's for other people to squabble over.

Back to stuff that resembles life...
Some inorganic entities DO replicate themselves, and so do some not-really-alive organic compounds.
Complicated patterns DO arise naturally from simple interactions.
Long story short, some traits of life can be found in entities that are generally agreed as not being alive in any actual sense.
You don't really NEED any kind of deity to have some life bootstrapped somewhere eventually - all you need is enough space and a long enough time coupled with an infinitesimally small but not quite zero chance of things happening in a certain way.
This of course does not mean a deity type entity could not possibly exist - it just means you don't necessarily have to assume one exists for things to have happened the way they did.

Evolution is not a concrete thing, it's a process, and a process that depends on the rules of the universe. Life itself (at least until it develops rudimentary sentience, then maybe later on also sapience) is not "motivated" to further itself, it just does it.
A virus does not "desire" to multiply, it just does due to its structure. Just like an oil slick does not "desire" to spread on open water. You need at least rudimentary sentience to "want" something.
Even sapient species such as ourselves are still strongly driven by our structure to further ourselves rather than because we "desire" to (or, better said, our desires are a result of our structure, but that's going too philosophical for my taste already).

Bottom line : while unlikely in small scale (time or space), going on a large enough scale, life (of some kind) is almost unavoidable given the conditions in our universe.
And even if you go the "perfectly fine-tuned universe" argument, that also falls flat under closer scrutiny - if the universe WOULD have had different rules (or, in a many-universe possible extended interpretation, you find yourself in an universe with vastly different rules), SOME type of life unlike anything that could even happen in our universe MIGHT have arisen, then evolved, and given again a large enough scale in time and space, would be still as good as unavoidable.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-04-21 20:12:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
The deity argument simply counters with, "well why is it all that way in the first place?" and around and around we go. But if we keep talking about that the thread will get locked.




No matter how many time I get a running start and ram my head into that wall, I will never pass through it as theoretical physics suggests. It's just not going to happen. Once you get enough variables in place, randomness and chaos actually serves to prevent such things from happening. Monkey 1 has the same odds of writing hamlet as monkey fifty billion billion trillion to the trillion trillionth power. A sequence 30,066 words long (not including spaces) does not HAVE To occur. That is the part that people are missing.


It is not that it won't occur...
It is that it does not HAVE TO EVER happen, even if you typed on and on forever.






It is just as possible that all you will ever get, for all time, from here to infinite and beyond... would look like this:



aksdjhalksjfdhlashf;owincs 8 wer8 w8 r98wedoido;ajdomaiodm;OIAMDXAIOAMO;XNXADOIxm9LK OIHHFUIHMS;OFIHSDUFH;S MSF'8EW SMV
EU tlkuxm L?zxf;oEURW3958OI
FSfoiSYWEUROIUSDLFISDFJ N';/V;om'PWIRO0W8
E,SD[PF"sdpKFSAP/UG;9SMTOQCKJM'9{dOEITU0Q9W4EU8LY6NU9W9U3KLCxO;UOI;SD90KLSDOISKDMCUWEOPMCNXN IDL;DF9E3JHSBX C;SPW89ERHJCMXCNXKXJXUDOWEMXL X JKCNDUIDMKD JSD,MD C KDMDMCKSI9EYUVC,DF C KXKXIELG09TJTLFMJSN XHXJUSOPDR87EJKDFK



So you see it is POSSIBLE that Hamlet, or the code for EVE online will never occur.
Other people are trying to say that it MUST occur, and that defies the basic truths of chaos and true randomness.


It does not have to happen, and there is no physical law that would presuppose that it must. It is just an unprovable assumption.






P.S.

The most interesting thing that I got from reading the Abiogenesis page was this: "According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on."


A man who we still think of as being one of the greatest minds ever generated by our species, was certain of this simple and plainly observable truth. Why was it observable? Was it impossible to find an Alligator nest and hatching eggs? Was it impossible to make a mound of dirty hay without rats in it and see if rats spontaneously appeared? He made an assumption of broad spanning proportions and claimed that it was not only fact, but that it was "readily observable". Well guess what Aristotle, you fail. LOL

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-04-21 23:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rara Yariza
Eternum Praetorian wrote:




P.S.

The most interesting thing that I got from reading the Abiogenesis page was this: "According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on."


A man who we still think of as being one of the greatest minds ever generated by our species, was certain of this simple and plainly observable truth. Why was it observable? Was it impossible to find an Alligator nest and hatching eggs? Was it impossible to make a mound of dirty hay without rats in it and see if rats spontaneously appeared? He made an assumption of broad spanning proportions and claimed that it was not only fact, but that it was "readily observable". Well guess what Aristotle, you fail. LOL


All im glad for is that the people who came after arisitotle weren't tortured and murdered when they disagreed with his findings and continued to search for the actual facts.

Imagine what kind of world we would live in if you couldn't disagree with the current dogma
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-04-22 07:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is not that it won't occur...
It is that it does not HAVE TO EVER happen, even if you typed on and on forever.


This is not correct and I don't know why you would think it is.

You would never make the same argument for a coin and say it's 'possible' to flip it an infinite number of times and get heads every single time. You seem to think because it's unlikely it may never happen, but infinity has no bias. You WILL get heads 50% of the time, and you WILL (heads=0, tails=1) spit out the entire binary code of EVE online and the two do not contradict in the slightest.

If you have a one in twenty trillion chance for your molecules to line up and slide your head through a brick wall, you WILL put your head through it given infinite tries.

It's called the Law of Large Numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Something Random
Byddin Un
#38 - 2012-04-22 09:09:05 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Something Random wrote:
YES - given infiinity, everything is possible, ...

No. Infinity does not make everything possible.

Imagine that you would cut time into two halves. You would have two infinite time lines, both in which everything would be possible. Now you cut each of the two time lines into more halves. You will have four time lines and each of them are still infinite and everything would still be possible in each of them. Now, if you cut these time limes further into halves and an infinite number of times, then eventually will your time lines only be as long as one second, but you would have an infinite number of time lines of one second. In other words, you have cut down time into an infinite number of seconds. As a conclusion, if everything is possible in infinite time, then everything has to be possible in only one second.

Do you believe it is possible that everything can happen in only one second?



Your kind of infinity is obviously very different to my kind then.

Personally ive never heard of an infinity that can be split to an end.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#39 - 2012-04-22 10:20:36 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is not that it won't occur...
It is that it does not HAVE TO EVER happen, even if you typed on and on forever.
It does not have to happen, and there is no physical law that would presuppose that it must. It is just an unprovable assumption.

The problem with that argument is the word "FOREVER", which implies that "infinity" might actually be considered a finite number which can eventually be reached, which in itself is contradictory.
In practical terms, "infinity" does not exist and as far as we know might even not actually possibly exist, being a purely theoretical (or if you prefer, hypothetical) construct.

If you insist on using "actual infinity" (so to speak, in terms people generally agreed upon as to what constitutes the concept of infinity), so in other words if you're ignoring any time limitation whatsoever, then it WOULD be theoretically inevitable to EVENTUALLY stumble upon not just a certain phrase, story or any other book in existence, but also on EACH AND EVERY POSSIBLE combination of any arbitrarily large (non-infinite) amount of total characters out of an arbitrarily large (non-infinite) set of characters.

Now, if you said "if you typed on and on using the maximum amount of entities able to type that can possibly simultaneously exist in this universe until the universe can no longer support any entities capable of typing", then yes, I would totally agree.
Under those conditions, getting a particular string of english language alphabetical characters (which does not even need to be very long at all, "twitter length" being already too high) by completely random typing does not have to happen at all, and in fact, it has more of a chance of NOT happening rather than happening, even given those particular overly generous constraints.
But that's not what you really said (even if you might have actually meant to say it), now is it ?
Whitehound
#40 - 2012-04-22 10:42:58 UTC
Akita T wrote:
The problem with that argument is the word "FOREVER", which implies that "infinity" might actually be considered a finite number which can eventually be reached, which in itself is contradictory.
In practical terms, "infinity" does not exist and as far as we know might even not actually possibly exist, being a purely theoretical (or if you prefer, hypothetical) construct. ...

You will be surprised when you realize how close we are to reaching infinity. When you consider how gravity fields influence time might the discovery of the Higgs boson not only lead to a better understanding of gravity, but of time as well. Once we do might it only be a small step to creating something, which knows no time - infinity.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.