Warp wrote:
>> It has nothing to do with "time", so you are technically correct in saying 
>> that it's physically impossible to do an infinite number of flips in a 
>> non-infinite length of time.
> 
>   Thus the monkey analogy is technically flawed. Which is my original point.

Well, yes. You're saying "No, an infinite number of monkeys won't type out 
the works of shakespeare *because* there aren't an infinite number of 
monkeys in the universe."

Certainly the argument falls down if you don't accept the premise. So does 
the proof that 1+1=2, so I'm not sure what your point is.

>>>> Resolve this discrepency, in your mind, and you'll understand why 
>>>> shakespeare must appear.
>>>   Once you explain to me the discrepancy that an event having zero
>>> probability can happen.
> 
>> When you do it an infinite number of times.
> 
>   But it happens with only one attempt, not an infinite amount of them.

Because you're incapable of picking one number from an infinite number of 
possible numbers, in precisely the same way it's impossible to have one 
real-world monkey typing for an infinite length of time.

>> Do you understand what I'm saying when I say you're confusing unbounded with 
>> infinite?
> 
>   The monkey analogy is trying to make a connection between theoretical
> math dealing with infinites and physical reality, which are at completely
> different conceptual levels.

You're denying that the premise could possibly be true in the real world. 
That isn't how math works.

> I do not fully understand the math, but I'm
> pretty sure I understand the physical process depicted by the analogy,
> and I'm pretty sure the claim is flawed.

No, I'm pretty sure you don't understand "after an infinite amount of time" 
in the physical process sense of the word. I don't think anyone does, except 
maybe perhaps Hawking.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message