1000 monkeys at 1000 computers typing randomly for infinite time...

[Proteinboy]

You aren't attempting to disprove what I said. Within a finite set of characters within the generated characters there is a finite number of combinations. Who cares what is typed before and after we just care that a certain number of characters matches the book.

Let me re-word this: You say there is an infinite number of combinations the generator can type which is true, but only because the number of characters it types is infinite. If I'm saying a particular book has 10,000 characters and we are looking for a match in the generated characters we would be continually looking for sets of 10,000 consecutive characters to see if it matched. Within that number of characters there is a finite number of ways they could be arranged.
Given that the generator is generating characters at random, one of these consecutive groups will eventually "almost certainly" match

Repeating again that there are infinite combinations going on for eternity doesn't confront this issue.

shakespear's shortest play is around 80,000 letters.
and what i am trying to say is that it doesnt matter if you look at sets of 10,000 characters or 80,000

what you are proposing we do, is look for a match. that is what the goal was from the beggining(for you). to find a match of hamlet generated by the randomizer. this changes nothing. you are simply stating that we can look for a match in the infinite block of mash.

there are going to be infinite sets of 80,000 characters. look at them all you want. this doesnt mean or prove anything.

you are not understanding that there are infinite ways for these 1000 generators to continue forever without creating hamlet. nothing is guarenteed to occur.

 

[Tanizaki]

you are not understanding that there are infinite ways for these 1000 generators to continue forever without creating hamlet. nothing is guarenteed to occur.

Correct. What all the clods here don't realize is that they are saying that given limitless time, every possible event is bound to occur. That simply is not the case.

 

[theGOOCH]

there are infinite ways for these 1000 generators to continue forever without creating hamlet.

No there aren't. That's what you don't understand.

 

[theGOOCH]

I have no idea what this is all about.
!

For once I agree with you.

 

[Tanizaki]

For once I agree with you.

If you agree it was a non sequitur, why did you introduce it?

(I thought fitness people had self-discipline!)

 

[Proteinboy]

No there aren't. That's what you don't understand.

if i coud sit here for infinite time, i could list and show you the infinite ways the generator could go on forever without creating hamlet. therefore, there are infinite ways it could go on forever without creating hamlet.

i understand that

 

[Woodt]

But PB, there aren't infinite ways it can go on without typing it. Just an obsenely large number. If a probability of a number is weighed against infinity, it is possible.

 

[[Focus]]

Setting aside all practical considerations (as has already been said by myself and some others) it's very simple: the possibility of something happening is not a guarantee, even on an infinite timeline. The reason being that probability is not affected by succession. Every time you flip the coin, there is a 50% chance of tails that is not affected by subsequent flips. As such, it's entirely possible that you could flip a coin an infinite number of times and never have it come up tails. Is it likely? No. But then neither is the theoretical circumstance you propose.

You say, "Because the possibility of a thing happening always exists, given an infinite timeframe, it will occur." Do you see the fallacy? The simple and obvious retort is, "If the possibility of its not occurring exists in perpetuity, then it is guaranteed not to occur." Neither is true.

And concerning the corollary to intelligent design,

 

[Proteinboy]

Every time you flip the coin, there is a 50% chance of tails that is not affected by subsequent flips. As such, it's entirely possible that you could flip a coin an infinite number of times and never have it come up tails. Is it likely? No. But then neither is the theoretical circumstance you propose.

thankyou for supporting and reclarifying this post written on page 5 of this thread

if a coin was to be tossed an infinite amount of times, is it possible that every single time, it lands as heads? given there is a 50% chance

the chances just get infinitly smaller.
1/2 *1/2 *1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 ...ect

it could happen that the coin will always land on heads. then that also means that tails would never occur.
ever.
just like the play Hamlet could also never have to occur

 

[Tanizaki]

And concerning the corollary to intelligent design,

I am glad you left out a discussion of intelligent design. ID is nonsense masquerading as science.

 

[[Focus]]

Not a problem, you two.

As I said, protein, it had already been said, but I thought maybe rewording it might help.

Tanizaki, though my last post was ended the way it was quite intentionally (as you may or may not have surmised), it was not meant to criticize belief in intelligent design itself; rather, the possibility of a discussion of its scientific merit, or its relevance to this discussion.

 

[Tanizaki]

Tanizaki, though my last post was ended the way it was quite intentionally (as you may or may not have surmised), it was not meant to criticize belief in intelligent design itself; rather, the possibility of a discussion of its scientific merit, or its relevance to this discussion.

ID has no scientific merit.