Do you all believe in the Infinite monkey theorem?

[Blackking]

Some people use it to explain.. basically everything.

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

I JUST DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT IS INTERESTING. BISMILLAHIR RAHMENIR RAHEEM. THE UNIVERSE IS CREATED PERFECTLY BY THE CREATOR. WHEN YOU REFLECT UPON THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS NO WAY IT JUST RANDOMLY CAME ABOUT, HOWEVER IT REFLECTS INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.

 

[NZA]

im no mathemetician or physicist, but if there is a multiverse, there are universes with absurd things happening, and ours is absurd from the POV of some life in one of those other universes

if you look at hackers who make programs to brute force crack passwords, they need time and processing power. monkeys have a couple decades of life, i suppose, but not much interest in typing. they seem to be an impracticable example. i think a computer that generates random words and punctuation would be a far better subject for an experiment.

 

[Malta]

im no mathemetician or physicist, but if there is a multiverse, there are universes with absurd things happening, and ours is absurd from the POV of some life in one of those other universes

if you look at hackers who make programs to brute force crack passwords, they need time and processing power. monkeys have a couple decades of life, i suppose, but not much interest in typing. they seem to be an impracticable example. i think a computer that generates random words and punctuation would be a far better subject for an experiment.

But, would it be able to produce the results complete, not just randomly getting the words but getting the proper order of the words

I'd have to say no chance, even with infinite amounts of time.

 

[NZA]

But, would it be able to produce the results complete, not just randomly getting the words but getting the proper order of the words

I'd have to say no chance, even with infinite amounts of time.

with infinite time and chances, yeah i think a computer would, monkeys, i guess it's possible in a small number of universes where monkeys are remarkably interested in keyboards

 

[Blackking]

I actually got this phrase from someone trying to use it to explain why basically everything that has ever happened, happened. ...but here it is on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

 

[Brown_Pride]

It's possible. I mean the theory is sound, given an INFINITE amount of time and an INFINITE amount of monkeys then sure, it's really just a matter of time. What's even sicker still is they will tell the future, the past and every thought ever thought. They'll also tell an infinite amount of lies Just gotta find that ONE monkey that knows wtf he'sdoing and oyu'll be good.

 

[NoMayo15]

Generally, when I hear this argument, it comes up under the context of evolution and DNA or ... patterns in nature. It usually follows someone who claims that there are so many things that couldn't be the result of random happenstance ... that there must be a highly intelligent being or force behind it. And in that sense, yes it's a sound point.

If a monkey pounds mindlessly on a keyboard for a minute or so, surely we'd be able to find at least one word in the scattered letters. The point isn't "Oh look, the monkey spelled 'fukk', look how smart it is". Its ... seeing an arrangement of letters (or a pattern) after the fact doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose behind that pattern. The monkey didn't purposely make a word, and yet by dumb luck it happened. Recognizing a pattern does not imply intent or purpose as Creationists would like to claim.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Generally, when I hear this argument, it comes up under the context of evolution and DNA or ... patterns in nature. It usually follows someone who claims that there are so many things that couldn't be the result of random happenstance ... that there must be a highly intelligent being or force behind it. And in that sense, yes it's a sound point.

If a monkey pounds mindlessly on a keyboard for a minute or so, surely we'd be able to find at least one word in the scattered letters. The point isn't "Oh look, the monkey spelled 'fukk', look how smart it is". Its ... seeing an arrangement of letters (or a pattern) after the fact doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose behind that pattern. The monkey didn't purposely make a word, and yet by dumb luck it happened. Recognizing a pattern does not imply intent or purpose as Creationists would like to claim.

i keep getting this bs response in here.
"well everytime i have this talk with someone it's someone trying to prove a point about xyz" unless the argument is made don't assume and stay on topic. IF they go that way then so be it but this whole premptive strick crap is silly

 

[NoMayo15]

i keep getting this bs response in here.
"well everytime i have this talk with someone it's someone trying to prove a point about xyz" unless the argument is made don't assume and stay on topic. IF they go that way then so be it but this whole premptive strick crap is silly

I apologize. Please forgive me, oh merciful one.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I apologize. Please forgive me, oh merciful one.

 

[daze23]

it actually only took one primate to write the complete works of Shakespeare

 

[NZA]

it actually only took one primate to write the complete works of Shakespeare

but he was a great ape, we talkin monkeys, breh

 

[daze23]

but he was a great ape, we talkin monkeys, breh

don't ruin my clever remark

and the kind of "monkey" I would imagine at a typewriter would probably be a chimp, and they are "great apes"

 

[Blackking]

Generally, when I hear this argument, it comes up under the context of evolution and DNA or ... patterns in nature. It usually follows someone who claims that there are so many things that couldn't be the result of random happenstance ... that there must be a highly intelligent being or force behind it. And in that sense, yes it's a sound point.

If a monkey pounds mindlessly on a keyboard for a minute or so, surely we'd be able to find at least one word in the scattered letters. The point isn't "Oh look, the monkey spelled 'fukk', look how smart it is". Its ... seeing an arrangement of letters (or a pattern) after the fact doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose behind that pattern. The monkey didn't purposely make a word, and yet by dumb luck it happened. Recognizing a pattern does not imply intent or purpose as Creationists would like to claim.

No I think the argument is used in atheist arguments... and I believe that it's a good point to make for them.