Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2003, 07:49 AM

Speaking of where did "words" come from, computation research into the evolution of languange has shown that given a set of ideas (say objects), a set of signals, a desire to link ideas with signals, and a fitness function that rewards successful communication, we find that a population of "speakers" will eventually settle down on a stable language. An interesting result is that often such stable languages have non-optimal features like:

Multiple signals that apply to the same object.
Some objects don't have an associated signal.
Some signals are not used.

Mageth · 03-07-2003, 08:09 AM

There is a chance but a vanishingly small one. 1000 monkies on 1000 typewriters in a billion years would struggle to write a single page of Shakespeare. More time and more monkeys and you increase the chances that they could produce Shakespeare's plays. But you'd only be certain they would if you had an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amount of time.

Agreed, but what you said is not substantially different from what I said.

seanie · 03-07-2003, 08:10 AM

Hey, I'm a pedant.

Duvenoy · 03-11-2003, 04:42 AM

I've tried to leave this alone. Really, I have! But I just can't stand it any longer.

.

Quote:

Actually, the argument usually goes that there is a chance that the monkeys would produce a Shakespeare play (though the monkeys would have no idea that they had). Given enough time and enough monkeys, they would produce a Shakespeare play; eventually, Shakespeare's entire works.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but if you had 1000 monkies working at 1000 typwriters, all you would end up with is 1000 wrecked typwriters. Probably the first day.

Sorry 'bout that.

doov

nogods4me · 03-11-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
I've tried to leave this alone. Really, I have! But I just can't stand it any longer.

.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but if you had 1000 monkies working at 1000 typwriters, all you would end up with is 1000 wrecked typwriters. Probably the first day.

Sorry 'bout that.

doov

Would that be before or after they typed the Complete Works of Kent Hovind?

Shadowy Man · 03-11-2003, 09:38 AM

cricket · 03-11-2003, 10:49 AM

Duvenoy · 03-11-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Would that be before or after they typed the Complete Works of Kent Hovind?

Hahahaha!

1000 wrecked typwriters are the complete works of Dr. Dino.

(hehe)

doov

Big Spoon · 03-12-2003, 02:20 AM

Nobody believes that a human being came into existence through chance - evolution is essentially a non-random process. Also, nobody believes that a monkey one day gave birth to a prefectly-formed human. Humans came about through small successive approximations.

On the monkey/typewriter situation: the probability of one monkey typing up Shakespeare is vanishingly small. So too would be the probability of at least one of the thousand (the union of the probabilities for the 1000 monkeys).
However If you were to look at the writings of each monkey, fish out any "real words" and combine them all in some way, then you could surely create something resembling coherent prose - that is a more appropriate analogy for evolution.

seanie · 03-12-2003, 02:50 AM

The Shakespeare analogy is useful in demonstrating the power of a cumulative selection process acting on random events as opposed to random events alone.

Look at a simple sentence;

"TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION"

40 characters including spaces. Allowing for 26 letters, comma and space, how many possible combinations are there for a 40 character string.

28 to the power 40.

That's a staggeringly high number. Set your computer running trying to generate that at random and it'll be running quite a while.

From now till the heat death of the universe.*

But with a cumulative selection process that preserves any letter that appears in the correct location, you'll do it in no time at all.

That's a good analogy for demonstrating the power of natural selection. A process of preserving and building upon random success.

*Complete guess. My maths ain't great. Nor is my cosmology.

03-07-2003, 07:49 AM	#31
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Speaking of where did "words" come from, computation research into the evolution of languange has shown that given a set of ideas (say objects), a set of signals, a desire to link ideas with signals, and a fitness function that rewards successful communication, we find that a population of "speakers" will eventually settle down on a stable language. An interesting result is that often such stable languages have non-optimal features like: Multiple signals that apply to the same object. Some objects don't have an associated signal. Some signals are not used.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 08:09 AM	#32
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	There is a chance but a vanishingly small one. 1000 monkies on 1000 typewriters in a billion years would struggle to write a single page of Shakespeare. More time and more monkeys and you increase the chances that they could produce Shakespeare's plays. But you'd only be certain they would if you had an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite amount of time. Agreed, but what you said is not substantially different from what I said.

03-07-2003, 08:10 AM	#33
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Hey, I'm a pedant.

03-11-2003, 09:38 AM	#36
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585

03-11-2003, 10:49 AM	#37
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188

03-12-2003, 02:20 AM	#39
Big Spoon Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: UK Posts: 74	Nobody believes that a human being came into existence through chance - evolution is essentially a non-random process. Also, nobody believes that a monkey one day gave birth to a prefectly-formed human. Humans came about through small successive approximations. On the monkey/typewriter situation: the probability of one monkey typing up Shakespeare is vanishingly small. So too would be the probability of at least one of the thousand (the union of the probabilities for the 1000 monkeys). However If you were to look at the writings of each monkey, fish out any "real words" and combine them all in some way, then you could surely create something resembling coherent prose - that is a more appropriate analogy for evolution.

03-12-2003, 02:50 AM	#40
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	The Shakespeare analogy is useful in demonstrating the power of a cumulative selection process acting on random events as opposed to random events alone. Look at a simple sentence; "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION" 40 characters including spaces. Allowing for 26 letters, comma and space, how many possible combinations are there for a 40 character string. 28 to the power 40. That's a staggeringly high number. Set your computer running trying to generate that at random and it'll be running quite a while. From now till the heat death of the universe.* But with a cumulative selection process that preserves any letter that appears in the correct location, you'll do it in no time at all. That's a good analogy for demonstrating the power of natural selection. A process of preserving and building upon random success. *Complete guess. My maths ain't great. Nor is my cosmology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.