If you have an unlimited amount of time, 100 monkeys, each with a type writer. Would you eventually get a complete version of Hamlet?

No.

If you have an unlimited amount of time, 100 monkeys, each with a type writer. Would you eventually get a complete version of Hamlet?

HI tmeunknown,

This argument also comes in the form of a question,"What are the chances of a tornado moving through a junk yard and putting together an assembled motor car? These are favorite arguments for people who don't believe life has evolved from basic one celled animals to humans. It is an argument against the possibility of such things as mutations and natural selection giving rise to complex organisms.

In answer to your question given a FINITE amount of time monkeys and tornado's will not put together anything significant. Given UNLIMITED amount of time the answer is yes.

Regards

Tut

The monkeys would be too busy breeding with each other and the typewriters would break down.

OK, I'll stop being quite so pragmatic.

It would happen eventually but it would take a very long time. Way longer than it took humans to evolve.

To take the evolution of life, it is quite possible that life has evolved through natural selection on other planets. It is not particularly likely that it has evolved in the same way as on earth. The chances of typing a specific book are way lower than that of typing any book.

However, whichever way life evolves, it does so partly because of the advantages conferred by beneficial mutations. Unless there is someone to reward the monkeys every time they happen to string letters and spaces together meaningfully they are unlikely to learn to do so in any way that moves forwards towards a piece of work which eventually emerges as Hamlet.

In other words, unlike the evolution of life, where increased survival etc leads to a selectivity of the random changes, the typing of the monkeys would rely on pure chance alone. My maths sure isn't good enough to calculate the odds of selecting the correct letters in the correct order but it would be a VERY long shot. However, it would be a finite number, therefore given that the time alocated is infinate it would happen eventually.

Of course it is much more likely that the monkeys will evolve superior intellects way before they recreate Hamlet by chance, so then they will find it a doddle.

I'm going to go with WG and say "no".

No but they may type better than some posters here and would most likely follow the rules ( not talking about this OP)

no but they may type better than some posters here and would most likely follow the rules ( not talking about this OP)

LOL! I agree Chuck. I have to spread the rep though.

Maybe AMHD should expand, start a site for monkeys. ;)

LOL! I agree Chuck. I have to spread the rep though.

Maybe AMHD should expand, start a site for monkeys. ;)

So that's what the new skin is for! :D

So that's what the new skin is for! :D

LMAO! Apparently! ;)

But to the OP question ( bad moderator bad for highjacking thread)

If you are looking at it from a math formula, and had millions of years ( and can be go with 10,000 monkeys) or a million perhaps. There is a percentage possibility. But as with any number game, will it ever hit since one possibility is that small odd that one series of event will not happen.

But when comparing it to the normal end, where one talks about the creation of the earth, that is just one event, where life would have took thousands of events for the evolution to go. So that would be like perhaps the complete work of Shakesphere and order of his writing

I don't understand why this question elicited responses having to do with creation and evolution. It's a simple enough mathematical question, basically boiling down to this: if you type out random letters, how long would it take to get a string of approximately 100,000 characters in a row that would be exactly the text of Hamlet? (I am guessing that the play is 100,000 characters long - if someone has a better estimate please let me know.) Here's a quick, back of the envelope calculation. Assume you have 27 English language charcters to choose from on the typewriter (26 letters plus the space key, asuming we don't care about punctuation or capitalization). In any sequence of 100,000 characters the chance of getting all 20000 correct is 1 in 27^100000, or approximately one in 10 to the 145000 power. So you would have to type out 100,000 x 10^145000 characters in order to have a 50% chance of getting one of those sequences right. That's 10^145005 characters having to be typed. To put this number in perspective - there aren't enough atoms in the entire universe to make the ink to do this work, even if each letter requires only one atom. And the time required if a monkey can type one character per second is thousands of orders of magnitude more than the age of the universe. So is it possible? Yes, from a mathematical point of view, but clearly no from any sort of practical view.

Oh yes, why not they work in government

Sorry a miss spelling (Government)

sorry a miss spelling (Government)
"miss spelling" is also misspelled.

Lol, thank you, but I am actually a monkey also so I am not doing to bad

"miss spelling" is also misspelled.

Lmao :D

But to op, no, not as the question stands anyway

e.g. you could have an unlimited amount of time but eventually the monkeys will die, then who's going to type out hamlet :(

So immortal monkeys stand a better chance :D but theyd break the type writers :( what I'm saying is you need to be more specific to get an answer of yes, and even then its only opinion,

No one will ever know

Because immortal monkeys DO NOT EXIST :mad:

The only way monkeys could type hamlet is if you remove their brain and attach electrodes into their muscles then obviously attach the electrodes to a computing device

of course they can. Its probability. If you close your eyes and start pushing random letters on your computer, sooner or later the letters H. A. M. L. E. T. will be next to each other. I forgot the exact equation but I think its 21!/26! That's 26 letters in alphabet - 6 letters gets you 20. Now treat everything as objects. Now you have 20 objects(letters) and 1 object(the word "hamlet") so 21 objects and the sample space is 26! So 21!/26!

dosovm: you're right - it is all about probability. But your math is a bit off. The probability of randomly typing an "H" is one out of 26. The probability of typing an H followed by an A is 1/26 x 1/26. The probability of typing all 6 letters of "HAMLET" in a row is (1/26)^6, or about 1 in 309 million. So if you set your monkey down and he randomly typed letters one per second you could expect that on average it would take him 9.8 years before he's likely to randomly type the word "HAMLET." Ths assumes that the typewriter has no punctuation marks or spaces, and that we don't care about upper case versus lower case.

Yeah sounds right. I just read your other comment and now I see he was asking about the whole play and not just the word.

Hello:

Given an infinite amount of time, ANYTHING that CAN happen, WILL happen.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

excon

Hello:

Given an infinite amount of time, ANYTHING that CAN happen, WILL happen.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

excon

Unless during that infinite amount of time some other event occurs which makes the thing that was initially possible become impossible. E.g. during the VERY long time frame associated with the monkey's typing Hamlet scenario a virus could emerge which would wipe out the entire population of monkeys on the planet,or the earth itself could be destroyed by any number of events...

Or more likely the thought police will find something non-politically-correct in the works of Shakespeare and will serve a writ on the monkeys and confiscate their typewriters. Or even more likely they will get shut down by the health and safety brigade on the grounds they don't have the proper training. :p

during the VERY long time frame associated with the monkey's typing Hamlet scenario a virus could emerge which would wipe out the entire population of monkeys on the planet,or the earth itself could be destroyed by any number of events...Hello again, Q:

It's not very long. It's INFINITE.. That's a tad longer... Infinite means that virus's absolutely DID emerge, and DID destroy the entire monkey population, countless numbers of times... And, the monkey's evolved again, and again, and then again, and even again, an infinite amount of times.

And, IF in one of those incarnations, a monkey happened to get hold of a typewriter, and was somehow able to write 99 of the 100 lines of Hamlet, and THEN the virus got 'em, it will take another infinite number of monkey populations before they write all 100 lines.. But, write them, they will.

I say again, given an unlimited amount of time, anything that CAN happen, WILL happen. Infinity is cool, isn't it?

excon

The monkey who is just about to type the last word before being wiped out by the deadly virus, prior to re-evolving etc etc is sure going to have one heck of a DOH! Moment...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgMj0wJ4n6GC1SbRHv_O97lHrEdZDxi K-ilocEDj0IOKkh2YBvpA&t=1

Except, and I don't have 3 days spare to do the maths, I still submit that the chances are statistically in favour of the monkeys evolving to a point where they are able to comprehend the task required before they would produce it randomly. Thus they would produce it and would understood they had. This assumes of course that it is advantageous for monkey evolution to lead down a path similar to that of human intelligence. However, if we lock 100 monkeys up in a room full of typewriters for infinity I would think it would be evolutionary advantageous to come up with the concept of DOH within that environment.

If you have an unlimited amount of time, 100 monkeys, each with a type writer. Would you eventually get a complete version of Hamlet?

This is a thought experiment and as such it doesn't rely on any type of 'possible experience'. Such things as evolution and viruses are not part of the mathematical principle being explored in this case.If evolution were 'written into' the experiment then these things would need to be taken into account.

Thought experiments are usually invented because theories cannot be tested by setting up an experiment. Having a brain in a vat is another type of thought experiment which obviously cannot be set up.

Another interesting type of thought involving probability is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the uncertainty principle is correct then a person who runs into a brick wall once every thirty seconds for the next 15 billion years will pass through the wall at least once within that time.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle relies on mathematical probablity calculations which lack any observations relating to the true state of matter.

If my physics is reasonably up to date, attempts to tie quantum theory to Einstein's theory of relativity, via the string theory, have as yet proved fruitless. Look at all the debate about dark matter, dark energy, and the fact that we cannot account for 96% of matter in the cosmos. Brian Schmidt's work on this is truly mind-bogglilng.

Debates about the differences between theoretical expectations, and measurable observations which throw those theories into question, grow.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/missing.shtml)

Until the physicists get their acts together I'm not giving too much credence to anyone's chance of running through a brick wall. Wonder how many physicists have a quantum computer on their wish list.

Yeh, I know I'm too bound in the measurable and observable to make a philosopher. However, when approaching a brick wall I prefer to take the pragmatic approach.

Pholosophers and scientists have the common trait of massively oversimplifying things to get a theory to work, everything always works in a perfect theoretical manner where any unwanted factors are conveniently removed. I prefer to keep things messy - it's just more fun.:p

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle relies on mathematical probablity calculations which lack any observations relating to the true state of matter.

If my physics is reasonably up to date, attempts to tie quantum theory to Einstein's theory of relativity, via the string theory, have as yet proved fruitless. Look at all the debate about dark matter, dark energy, and the fact that we cannot account for 96% of matter in the cosmos. Brian Schmidt's work on this is truly mind-bogglilng.

Debates about the differences between theoretical expectations, and measurable observations which throw those theories into question, grow.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/missing.shtml)


Yeh, I know I'm too bound in the measurable and observable to make a philosopher. However, when approaching a brick wall I prefer to take the pragmatic approach.

p

Hi QLP,

You are not alone. There does seem to be a bit of a 'back lash' against scientific realism at the moment. I am not a scientist but I would tentatively suggest that there is some observational evidence in support of dark energy and dark matter. Observational evidence suggests that 'some thing' or 'some force' (called dark energy) is causing objects in the universe to 'rush away' at an ever increasing rate.

I would think that Hume (some 250 years ago) knew what Heisenberg had discovered. If we can imagine something then it has a probability factor. I think Heisenberg established a scientific reason as to how this could happen. e.g. running into a brick wall and passing through it.

Even after all these years science still seems to basically conform to Humean skepticism. Having said that I think it is interesting that Heisenberg has provided us with a explanation as to how this might be possible. In other words, if I were to run at a brick wall and pass through it then Heisenberg could explain why this happened.


Regards

Tut

There is evidence to support the EFFECT of something, which has been deemed dark matter. We have yet to actually detect its presence. The whole question of dark matter is being redebated.

Reliance on Indirect Evidence Fuels Dark Matter Doubts: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts)

I have read Heisenberg's mathematical 'proof' but at the end of the day it is just an impressive set of equations which work if you accept his various assumptions. The brick wall scenario is just an extension of this. Bring in some reliable real-life observations and the questions start. One of the benefits of quantum theory, I believe, was its ability to effectively deal with how radioactive particles work, since existing theories at the time did not give an acceptable explanation on this. It works well in this realm but roll it out to cover everything and holes appear. Sure some day the scientists may join up the missing dots - don't think they are quite there yet.

To go off on yet another slight tangent, as is my won't, maybe the whole human tendency to apply our little rules of understanding more universally than they actually should be is at the heart of the matter. Are any of us really that much cleverer than the child who pluralises mouse as mouses until he learns the exception?

So yes, I would expect radiation to pass through a brick wall, but I wouldn't expect you to do so. Having said that when you report back that you have achieved this I will happily accept Heisenberg's explanation. I shall start buttering my hat...

Reliance on Indirect Evidence Fuels Dark Matter Doubts: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts)



Hi QLP,

Interesting isn't it. "Wriggling out of observations" is what scientific realists do best. On the other hand, observation doesn't provide a much better explanation. Although, I am sure you would argue that it does.

There is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect. By the same token when it comes to mathematical postulations they are by no means free of doubt , inconsistency and paradoxes.

Are we to lapse into skepticism? I will see you at the Mad Hatters quantum tea party. You can butter your hat and I will pour the tea.

Regards

YTut

Even first hand observations can be misleading. A very mundane example was an experience I had only the other day. Standing at a market stall I was suddenly hit with a wave of intense dizzyness and nausea as the whole earth around me lurched alarmingly. My first thought was that it was some minor medical situation. However my hubby, at the side of me, and several other people nearby reported exactly the same thing at the same time. As there were no buildings crumbling around us an earthquake seemed unlikely. Turned out the market stall guy had made the whole stall canopy wobble around us, causing a mass optical illusion which caused a good deal of confusion and discomfort temporarily. Add some instrumentation and some need to anyalyse the results and one has to ask can we really believe our eyes - or whatever else we use to observe.

My little episode of confusion was solved by a little extra knowledge and some logic. Or was it? Maybe the market stall guy lied. Maybe my logic in relating cause to effect was indeed flawed.

So we can't always rely on observations and we can't always rely on logic. We truly are blind in the world to many things. Yet it is interesting how vehemently people will argue their own viewpoint on anything you care to mention. As the saying goes, 'me thinks the lady protesteth too much.'

I like mine weak and milky. Will that be toasted trilby, boiled beret, or fried fez for you?