Monkeys and a typewriter

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is something about the Shakespeare, monkey and typewriter idea.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-confirm-monkeys-do-not-have-the-time-to-write-shakespeare


****************

If you sit sufficient monkeys in front of sufficient typewriters and give them sufficient time, eventually their random banging will reproduce the works of Shakespeare.

Thus asserts the Infinite Monkey Theorem, a thought experiment that considers the possibility that a cumulation of random events will eventually produce something of great meaning.

Mathematicians Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta of the University of Technology Sydney in Australia have crunched the numbers, and determined that there won't be enough time in the entire estimated lifespan of the Universe for monkeys to accidentally hammer out a sequence of key-presses that matches Hamlet.

The calculations were based on different numbers of 'monkeys' between 1 and 200,000 – the estimated current global population of chimpanzees – in front of keyboards with varying numbers of keys, typing at one keystroke per second for a googol years – an estimated time until the Universe undergoes heat death, which would effective put a stop to any simian tapping.

"It is not plausible that, even with possible improved typing speeds or an increase in chimpanzee populations, these orders of magnitude can be spanned to the point that monkey labor will ever be a viable tool for developing written works of anything beyond the trivial,"

****************

Cheers.

Sriram

[Maeght]

That is why it is the Infinite Monkey Theorem isn't it?

[SteveH]

I hope this isn't leading up to a denial of evolution, because the monkey-typewriter argument for intelligent design has been comprehensively rubbished by evolutionary biologists.

[Sriram]

I have never denied evolution. I have only maintained that there is some kind of an Intelligence driving it....  Not sure what it is though...!

[SteveH]

Darwinian evolution by natural selection doesn't need an intelligence to drive it.

[Sriram]

The idea of the monkeys was to suggest that given infinite time mere random processes would be enough to create a complex world.

Problem is that there is no infinite time. Even taking the entire life time of the universe it is not possible for random processes to generate a complex and orderly universe.

[jeremyp]

That is why it is the Infinite Monkey Theorem isn't it?

If you have an infinite number of monkeys, at least one of them* will produce the complete works of Shakespeare straight away (well, after they have pressed the exact right number of keys).

In fact, by the time the Complete Works of Shakespeare have been  produced, it is likely that several better but shorter pieces of literature will already have been written.

*Actually, an infinite number of them.

[SteveH]

Darwinian evolution isn't random. It is "the non-random accumulation of random mutations". If we replace the monkeys and typewriters with a computer programmed to generate letters, numbers and characters at random, and to make discrete passes rather than an infinite string, and to carry letters etc. which were in the right place in one pass over to subsequent passes, which is a better analogy for how Darwinian evolution works, Shakespeare's works would be produced within a reasonable period of time. This has actually been done on aa smaller scale, with Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy.

[Maeght]

The idea of the monkeys was to suggest that given infinite time mere random processes would be enough to create a complex world.

Problem is that there is no infinite time. Even taking the entire life time of the universe it is not possible for random processes to generate a complex and orderly universe.

I thought you were going with that but thought I'd give you the benefit of he doubt.

Evolution by Natural Selection is not random so not equivalent.

[Outrider]

The idea of the monkeys was to suggest that given infinite time mere random processes would be enough to create a complex world.

Yes.

Problem is that there is no infinite time.

Arguable.

Even taking the entire life time of the universe it is not possible for random processes to generate a complex and orderly universe.

That's not what this paper shows, this paper shows that it's not likely that a random process would generate a specific orderly universe. Given that many of the processes involved are not random and that there is nothing to suggest that this specific configuration of a universe was some kind of target at the start, that limits the applicability of the findings of the paper.

O.

[Sriram]

Yes.

Arguable.

That's not what this paper shows, this paper shows that it's not likely that a random process would generate a specific orderly universe. Given that many of the processes involved are not random and that there is nothing to suggest that this specific configuration of a universe was some kind of target at the start, that limits the applicability of the findings of the paper.

O.

I don't know about the target bit. When we humans develop products we have a vague idea of the target but not very sure in most cases. As we develop the product it evolves according to the needs and requirements. Probably that is how biological evolution also happens.

Random variations are surely monkeys on a typewriter. Natural Selection is a metaphor.

[Outrider]

I don't know about the target bit. When we humans develop products we have a vague idea of the target but not very sure in most cases. As we develop the product it evolves according to the needs and requirements.

Neither evolution, nor the random nature of the hypothetical infinite monkey scenario, though, works like that.

Probably that is how biological evolution also happens.

There is absolutely nothing in the model or the evidence to suggest that's how evolution works.

Random variations are surely monkeys on a typewriter. Natural Selection is a metaphor.

Yes it is. That doesn't mean the process doesn't happen, it means nothing is making a considered choice. Survival and reproduction has the effect of looking like 'nature' is making a selection, but it isn't; fitness is working more effectively.

O.

[Sriram]

Neither evolution, nor the random nature of the hypothetical infinite monkey scenario, though, works like that.

There is absolutely nothing in the model or the evidence to suggest that's how evolution works.

Yes it is. That doesn't mean the process doesn't happen, it means nothing is making a considered choice. Survival and reproduction has the effect of looking like 'nature' is making a selection, but it isn't; fitness is working more effectively.

O.

Phenotypes don't just get 'selected' because of their chance fitness in a specific environment.  Phenotypic plasticity. A given genotype expresses itself differently in different ecologic settings depending on the environment.  This is a clear case of intelligent response to a situation.

Let us be clear that I am not referring to a God in heaven deciding such matters.  I am talking about intelligence being inherent at a deeper level in all living beings.

[Outrider]

Phenotypes don't just get 'selected' because of their chance fitness in a specific environment.

Do they not? You need to tell the entirety of evolutionary biology that, and then collect your Nobel prize for overturning one of the most widely and deeply evidenced theories in science.

Phenotypic plasticity. A given genotype expresses itself differently in different ecologic settings depending on the environment.

Yes, there are numerous examples of this. Adaptability is, in some instances, a fitness.

This is a clear case of intelligent response to a situation.

In what way? How is a variation that gives adaptability evidence of intelligence?

Let us be clear that I am not referring to a God in heaven deciding such matters.  I am talking about intelligence being inherent at a deeper level in all living beings.

That it's 'Cosmic Quantum Woo' rather than, say, Catholic Doctrine or a traditional interpretation of the Vedas is irrelevant, it's unevidenced assertion. You're asserting intelligence, but not giving any evidence for that intelligence, and instead falling back on arguments from incredulity. You might not be able to believe it when seen as a whole, but the model is viable, the evidence supports the model, and the predictions the model makes are borne out.

There is no reason to presume an underlying intelligence is guiding evolution.

O.

[Sriram]

Do they not? You need to tell the entirety of evolutionary biology that, and then collect your Nobel prize for overturning one of the most widely and deeply evidenced theories in science.

Yes, there are numerous examples of this. Adaptability is, in some instances, a fitness.

In what way? How is a variation that gives adaptability evidence of intelligence?

That it's 'Cosmic Quantum Woo' rather than, say, Catholic Doctrine or a traditional interpretation of the Vedas is irrelevant, it's unevidenced assertion. You're asserting intelligence, but not giving any evidence for that intelligence, and instead falling back on arguments from incredulity. You might not be able to believe it when seen as a whole, but the model is viable, the evidence supports the model, and the predictions the model makes are borne out.

There is no reason to presume an underlying intelligence is guiding evolution.

O.

A chameleon for example, changes color within minutes to suit the environment. That is adaptation and that is an intelligent response to the environment. That is evidence.

I am not saying that the chameleon thinks about it and changes its color. I am saying that the internal system itself enables such a response. That is intelligence.

[Gordon]

A chameleon for example, changes color within minutes to suit the environment. That is adaptation and that is an intelligent response to the environment. That is evidence.

I am not saying that the chameleon thinks about it and changes its color. I am saying that the internal system itself enables such a response. That is intelligence.

If it doesn't have to think about it then it probably isn't 'intelligence' - just as my pupils, like yours, will automatically dilate or contract as light levels vary so I'd suggest that autonomic physical processes aren't, taken in isolation, indicators of intelligence.

[Outrider]

A chameleon for example, changes color within minutes to suit the environment.

No, they don't. Chameleons are fast, they evade predators, they don't hide from them. Chameleon's shift colour for thermoregulation and communication - they change colour in response to mood, not threats.

That is adaptation and that is an intelligent response to the environment.

That is adaptation. Even if you had the explanation of why they change colour it would still be adaptation, yes. Even if they did change colour for camouflage - let's take seahorses, instead, there are species of seahorse that shift colour to aid in camouflage - the fact that they manifest that change in colour in response to the environment isn't evidence that the ability emerged as a response to the environment. It's evidence that once it was available it provided the seahorses that had it with, potentially, a beneficial trait that gave them a better chance of surviving to reproduction than seahorses in that environment that didn't have the trait.

The existence of colour changing isn't dependent upon the environment, but the persistence and relative frequency of colour changing is. Like, you, the environment exerts selective pressures on things.

That is evidence.

Yes, but not for what you're suggesting that it's evidence for.

I am not saying that the chameleon thinks about it and changes its color. I am saying that the internal system itself enables such a response. That is intelligence.

You have manifestly failed to make any sort of case, there, even if you picked a creature that manifests the trait you say it manifests for the reasons you're ascribing.

O.

[SqueakyVoice]

If you have an infinite number of monkeys, at least one of them* will produce the complete works of Shakespeare straight away (well, after they have pressed the exact right number of keys).

In fact, by the time the Complete Works of Shakespeare have been  produced, it is likely that several better but shorter pieces of literature will already have been written.

*Actually, an infinite number of them.

The estimated calculation is only allowing one key press per second. Just get the monkeys to type  quicker and Bobsyr uncll ...