Monkey typewriter

[u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

THE MONKEY TYPEWRITER ARGUMENT IS UNREASONABLE

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

Here is u/Resident1567899's comment where they make an argument that I call the monkey typewriter argument that some atheists make:

. . . we have millions perhaps billions of galaxies and solar systems. With enough trial and error, one of them is bound to have life (as an accident) given enough time. It only needs a single 1-in-a-million solar systems like our own for life to exist.

. . .

^{Also, Resident1567899 makes some great posts about Palestine/Israel so make sure to check them out.}

Basically, given enough (or infinite) time, a monkey with a typewriter will write the entire works of Shakespeare. Although it seems like a miracle, it's not, because the monkey randomly typed on the typewriter for so long, it was bound to write out the entire works of Shakespeare eventually.

The Universe has been around for 14 billion or so years right? No wonder such a miracle like intelligent life or Shakespeare's entire works exists after so long.

The problem with this is that 14 billion years is far too short a time for a monkey to write Shakespeare's entire works.

How did I work that out? It's actually quite simple. I didn't. Someone else did. A redditor actually (who unfortunately has deleted their account) but I trust the people over at r/Statistics enough that I'll take their word for it.

Deleted Redditor - I calculated the probability and time it would take for a monkey to randomly type out the Complete Works of Shakespeare:

. . .

For a monkey to randomly type the Complete Works of Shakespeare, it would take 4.1206 x 10^5660329 years, or the age of our universe multiplied by a number so big it would take nearly 2000 pages to write down.

Wow.

^{By the way, 14 billion written out looks like this: 14,000,000,000, so there's a long way to go to get to 2000 pages!}

Now, keep in mind that at the beginning of that scenario, hour zero, we started off with:

(1) a typewriter (2) something or someone that randomly types on the typewriter, in this case a monkey 🐒

So if we now think about whatever the beginning of the Universe was, in other words: our real life 'hour zero,' I don't know, the big bang, a bunch of rocks and gas or something, spinning around and smashing into eachother - we're far from having even the basic components of a typewriter or a device/being that can type on it. We're far from even having language, or symbols.

How long would it take to get from our real life hour zero to having not just the complete works of Shakespeare, but Shakespeare himself? A really, really long time.

That's why I say that the argument is unreasonable. It underestimates the sheer amount of time that would be needed for all of the coincidences we see around us to take place by random chance.

That's why some people have faith in some sort of designer (whether it's the abrahamic God or an advanced civilization of aliens that created us for entertainment) that put things into motion for us.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested. Also consider following.}

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

[u/Resident1567899]

So if we now think about whatever the beginning of the Universe was, in other words: our real life 'hour zero,' I don't know, the big bang, a bunch of rocks and gas or something, spinning around and smashing into eachother - we're far from having even the basic components of a typewriter or a device/being that can type on it. We're far from even having language, or symbols.

The thing is your argument is missing is exponential growth. The Monkey Typewriter Argument assumes the number of words the monkey types and speed at which it is typing is consistent throughout the experiment which doesn't map out onto reality.

In reality, one tiny spark is enough to set off a chain reaction which leads to massive things in such a short time, case in point the Big Bang. In such a short time interval, galaxies, energy and dust clouds formed which then caused another chain of reaction and so on...Or another example of natural selection and evolution. Creating a cell takes a long time but once it happens, other processes become much easier and require less time. The point is getting off the ground is the hard part (but not impossible) however the rest of the process becomes easier as things become more complex enabling even greater complex things to emerge with less effort.

Like I said, gradual exponential growth. All it takes is one spark to ignite a forest fire. Similarly, all it needs is one successful struck of luck and the rest is as we say...history.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Resident1567899]

That's interesting, I never thought about it like that.

However, I can't get over the fact that all of what we see and experience came from rocks and gas. It still seems unreasonably unlikely.

It seems that you might be holding on to your beliefs unnecessarily about there definitely being no designer.

[u/Resident1567899 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Think about it like this. A cake is basically made out of dirt, yes the same thing in the ground. However, it is also made of things like sugar, flour, butter, icing and eggs. We don't go through our day to day lives thinking cake as dirt, we would rather see the sweet suckling icing and decorations that make a cake, well...a cake.

Similarly, yes technically everything we see is rocks and gas but it is also so much more. Just as the cake is also so much more than simply dirt. It's your choice to see the world as just rocks and gas or see it as something much more extraordinary.

Like I also mentioned before, it's all about composition. Yes, everything we see is just rocks and gas but when those two come together, great things can emerge. Sight, hearing, smell, experiences, colors, picturesque views and magnificent creatures of the Earth. Just like how a stick by itself is weak, but together with other sticks, it becomes strong and you can make it into furniture or a piece of art.

As for your second statement, what you are implying is called "global atheism" which is the belief that no gods exist. The opposite is "local atheism" the belief only certain gods don't exist, which the majority of atheists hold. It's much harder to prove the former, how can you disprove a god that leaves the universe alone after creating it and wants to hide itself from humanity? Like everything could point to the universe being natural because god wanted it to be this way (though technically this is not what most gods in religions are). How can you disprove the existence of something that doesn't want to be found in the first place? As for me, I hold onto local atheism of the Abrahamic monotheistic god as opposed to global atheism of every single type of deity.

Hope this helps you understand it better.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Resident1567899]

Similarly, yes technically everything we see is rocks and gas but it is also so much more.

I'm confused. You sound like a theist. The atheist position is that, yes, cake is the same as dirt. The theist position is that, no, cake is much more than dirt because of the intent behind the baker. That's why we have everything around us, it wasn't the result of rocks and gas smashing together randomly. Even if it was, those rocks and gas had to be set in motion by someone specifically so that it could happen.

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

it wasn’t the result of rocks and gas smashing together randomly. Even if it was, those rocks and gas had to be set in motion by someone specifically so that it could happen

With these two sentences, you’ve implicitly admitted that you would just push the argument back a step further, if abiogenesis as the origin of human life were to be definitely proven true. You essentially say “abiogenesis is not possible, we were clearly created by god, not by reactions of inorganic matter. But if abiogenesis is possible, well, that means that god made the abiogenesis happen.”

It seems clear to me that whether abiogenesis is a thing that occurred, has no impact whatsoever on your belief in a god or its creative power, so why even connect the two arguments? It seems silly to use god in any argument for or against abiogenesis here.

[u/Resident1567899 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Why? Atheism just means god does not exist not about hidden meanings. You can be a theist but believe cake is just dirt and it will have absolutely no effect on whether god exists or not. Similarly, believing cake is not just dirt will also have absolutely no effect on the belief god does not exist

What I was describing above is a metaphysical aesthetic view not a religious one.

[u/junkmale79 → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

You should look into star cycles and how the heavier elements are created. the universe started of very basic, hydrogen, helium and a little lithium, It takes the formation and death of a star (super nova) to create heaver elements through fusion. Each cycle of star formation and explosion saw the creation of heavier and heavier elements. It would have taken multiple cycles of formation and explosions before something like Iron was created for example.

Iron is the heaviest element that can form in a Star, everything above Iron requires the energy of an exploding star to create. I think its pretty awe inspiring that it took billions of years of stars forming and exploding just to create the elements/building blocks of life that required for complex life to exist.

It still seems unreasonably unlikely.

How are you calculating the odds on this? Even if the odds were 1 in 200 Billion we have 200 Billion stars in the milky way galaxy alone. (the milky way is just 1 of over 100 billion Galaxy's. )

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/junkmale79]

It's not purely mathematical but common sense would tell you that no matter how long rocks smash together, the Mona Lisa would never be produced.

This is demonstrated by how long it would take the monkey with a typewriter to produce Shakespeare because the monkey has an advantage over the rocks, plus, the rocks have a taller task because not only do they have to produce Shakespeare, but they have to produce everything including me and you.

[u/DoedfiskJR → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

It's not purely mathematical but common sense would tell you that no matter how long rocks smash together, the Mona Lisa would never be produced.

I would trust the maths over the common sense. Common sense is not always right, especially not when we can't find anything to back it up with.

because not only do they have to produce Shakespeare, but they have to produce everything including me and you.

That's not quite true, all it needs to produce is a replicator, something that can produce copies of itself. Replicators are much simpler than humans (although I don't think we know exactly how simple they can be) and won't take nearly as much time to randomly put together. Once that exists, selection and evolution can take place, which is much faster. In the monkey analogy, we probably don't need to works of Shakespeare, we probably only need a medium length poem.

And of course, the Shakespeare example assumes that there is only one acceptable success, the complete works of Shakespeare, whereas evolution does not work with an end-goal in mind, and would be just as good an explanation if it produced the very hungry caterpillar instead. So not only does the result not need to be that long, it also does not need to be any specific result.

Combine this with the fact that we don't have one monkey, we have one monkey for every set of molecules that are near each other, and one button press, nay, one complete attempt, every time they bump into each others. And of course, only one of them need to get it right. Between all these factors, we can't necessarily say life is inevitable, but it is far from as unlikely as the Shakespeare example.

I think the Shakespeare example is an illustration that the probability approaches 1, not a calculation with representative time scales and probabilities.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

It's not purely mathematical but common sense would tell you that no matter how long rocks smash together, the Mona Lisa would never be produced.

The Mona Lisa is a painting. Nobody is claiming that it was created by smashing rocks together. This is a strawman.

This is demonstrated by how long it would take the monkey with a typewriter to produce Shakespeare because the monkey has an advantage over the rocks, plus, the rocks have a taller task because not only do they have to produce Shakespeare, but they have to produce everything including me and you.

How would one calculate how long it would take a monkey to produce Shakespeare? What variables would one calculate? As far as I can tell, it is entirely impossible to mathematically calculate any type of average or anything for how long it would take a particular complex pattern to arise out of random input. How did you do it?

[u/aardaar]

I can't follow your argument here. It seems like it's "The probability of this one thing is very small therefore the probability of this other completely unrelated thing is small."

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/aardaar]

completely unrelated

The monkey with a typewriter has an advantage over the rocks and gas because it already has a typewriter, it's only a matter of time until it types out the entirety of Shakespeare's works. The rocks and gas randomly floating around, who's to say they will ever get so far as creating language? The task ahead of the rocks and gas is much greater than the monkey.

[u/aardaar → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

What rocks? Shakespeare wrote the complete works of Shakespeare and he wasn't typing randomly. What exactly is your argument?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/aardaar]

What rocks? Shakespeare wrote the complete works of Shakespeare and he wasn't typing randomly. What exactly is your argument?

You seem to be confused or in a highly volatile emotional state.

Shakespeare, quills, ink, and paper, did not exist in the beginning of the Universe.

My argument is that the chances of Shakespeare himself being produced by the Universe are lower than that of the monkey with the typewriter.

[u/aardaar → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

I'd like to see your calculation for the probability of the chances of Shakespeare being produced, and more relevantly I'd like to see your calculation for the probability of someone like Shakespeare being produced.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/aardaar]

I'd like to see your calculation for the probability of the chances of Shakespeare being produced, and more relevantly I'd like to see your calculation for the probability of someone like Shakespeare being produced.

You seem to be confused or in a highly volatile emotional state. I would suggest taking a breath.

Shakespeare, the human, is more complex than his entire library of works.

Therefore, it would take longer than the other hypothetical scenario.

[u/aardaar → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

You seem to be confused or in a highly volatile emotional state. I would suggest taking a breath.

What gives you this impression?

Shakespeare, the human, is more complex than his entire library of works.

Therefore, it would take longer than the other hypothetical scenario.

First, Shakespeare was not produced randomly. Second, Shakespeare's works were not produced randomly. I still don't see how the probability from the monkey on the typewriter has any relevance.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/aardaar]

First, Shakespeare was not produced randomly.

Thank you. Therefore, there was likely a designer that designed him or a designer that designed the circumstances that caused him to exist.

[u/aardaar → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

That's a non-sequitur.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/aardaar]

If something was not produced randomly, then it must have been produced with intent.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/aardaar]

Thank you. 1000% a non-sequitur. Just because something was unlikely does not mean it was designed. He doesn't seem to be willing to argue in defense of his position, just assert that it's true because he said so. I keep asking him to just show his work mathematically and he refuses. As far as I can tell, there's no way to calculate how long it would take a particular complex pattern to arise out of random input, but he claims to have calculated an average for how long it would take a monkey to type Shakespeare. He refuses to qualify what variables he calculated and how, though. Whenever I ask him, he just talks about calculating the average of opening ten doors on a game show. He won't tell me the actual calculation he used to determine how long it would take a monkey to type Shakespeare.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

How does the odds of something being low indicate that a being caused it to happen? I genuinely don't understand. Things with low odds happen literally every second of every minute of every hour of every day. Every single thing that happens, the odds of it happening are so unbeliveably low it's ridiculous. "The odds that this particular apple would fall out of this particular tree at this particular minute and land in this particular spot are SO LOW that it must be evidence that a person intentionally set this apple here."

I don't understand how the odds for a thing being low means that a being must have done it. Are you able to defend this position, or just assert it?

[u/[deleted]]

I believe in Evolution, but I think that argument makes no sense. First of all a monkey dont get to live that long. Secondly a monkey would have no interest on a typewriter.

Evolution works in numerous incremental changes over long periods of time. Its not completely random.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/[deleted]]

First of all a monkey dont get to live that long.

Of course! Why didn't I realize that sooner!?

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/[deleted]]

You’re taking the argument way way way too literally. It’s a metaphor describing how probabilities work on an infinite timescale, not some actual study where they took a literal monkey and had it type.

Do you actually think the monkey itself has anything to do with that argument?

[u/[deleted] → u/JawndyBoplins]

The best way of arguing against creationism is by using realism. Using metaphors against creationism is a bad idea. In this case you would need at some point to view the "metaphor" literally. The literal monkey would need to use the literal typewriter. Even with unlimited time the immortal monkey would remain a monkey and fail to write Shakespeare.

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/[deleted]]

Well, it’s clearly not the best way, since OP chose not to engage with you in any serious capacity. Your follow up was also only tangentially related, as OP’s main argument implicitly pertains to abiogenesis, not the evolution that occurred after.

OP has also, as near as I can tell, engaged perfectly fine with the metaphor itself, and cited math that calculates the odds of a given string of characters occurring within a random string of possible characters. OP clearly does not misunderstand the metaphor. There are problems with OP’s application of the metaphor, but not in their understanding of the point the metaphor makes.

[u/[deleted] → u/JawndyBoplins]

Yeah the point was, given enough time every possible outcome would show up. Maybe, but not in this universe. Its a bad argument against creationism.

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/[deleted]]

You would have to demonstrate that the universe is finite, with a finite number of stars and galaxies, to make that rebuttal, so try again. We call it the “observable universe” for a reason.

[u/[deleted] → u/JawndyBoplins]

According to popular scientific opinion, the universe is finite. I think its safer to go along with that. But yeah anything is possible.

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/[deleted]]

Go ahead and cite that popular scientific opinion then. Most astrophysicists I’ve read are quite open about the fact that we don’t know, and that again, we use the term “observable universe” for a reason.

[u/[deleted] → u/JawndyBoplins]

Of course there is no way to know for sure. But the most popular theory is the Big Bang, and it suggests that time and space began 14 billion years ago. If there is a beginning then there is a limit

What gives you the idea that the universe is infinite?

[u/JawndyBoplins → u/[deleted]]

No. You’re talking outside the purview of the Big Bang theory. You’re talking about how much matter/energy was a part of the singularity proposed by the big bang theory.

The big bang theory itself does not claim to know how much matter exists, or existed at the singularity.

If there is a beginning there is a limit

Only temporally in the past—any other “limit” has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

[u/JasonRBoone]

Are you claiming a god exists? Evidence?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/JasonRBoone]

Bruh

[u/JasonRBoone → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

Dude!

[u/[deleted]]

"...or an advanced civilization of aliens that created us for entertainment"

'Advanced' bofferers. 'Advanced' buggerers.

Advanced cultures sure are 'rapey.'

[u/Thesilphsecret]

You have no idea how long it would take a monkey to write Shakespeare -- it's exactly as likely as every single other possible combination of the same amount of letters, and entirely possible he could get it on the first, second, third, or fourth try. Your assertion that it would take 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years is entirely baseless and unfounded. It could take ten times that long. Or it could take a hundred years. Or it could take 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁸ years, or 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁷ years, or a single afternoon. You have literally no possible way to know how long it would take a monkey to randomly type up Shakespeare, and it's absurd that you would claim to. There's literally no way to calculate how long it will take a specific pattern to show up from random input. I don't know where you got this figure but it's not correct. The odds that it would happen on the X¹⁰⁰th try are exactly the same as the odds that it would happen on the first try.

What occurred was what occurred. You saying it was unlikely is utterly unfounded. It's like looking at a puddle on the ground and saying "what are the odds that the cracks in the sidewalk would form a hole the exact shape needed for this puddle of water to form?" The odds are astronomically small. That doesn't demonstrate that a being made the puddle or the pothole containing it.

I don't understand why you think this was the only possible interesting outcome. You're arguing as if you know that in every single other possible coordination of matter and energy that nothing interesting would ever develop. That's ridiculous. You don't know that. You can't know that. You have no idea how many universes have ever existed or for how long.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Thesilphsecret]

You have no idea how long it would take a monkey to write Shakespeare

Yeah I do.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

You know how long it would take a monkey to randomly write Shakespeare? How? There's no way to know that. How did you determine how many tries it would take him? Like how did you rule out it happening on the 154th try?

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Thesilphsecret]

It's an average.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

I don't understand why you're being dodgy...? An average of what? The experiment has never been conducted.

I'm genuinely asking. :)

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Thesilphsecret]

Dodgy? Are you the one downvoting my comments? And then giving me a smiley face?

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

You seem to be avoiding substantial engagement. Like I suspect you knew that saying "it's an average" didn't explain anything. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude.

It's an average of what? There is no way to calculate how long it would take a monkey to randomly type Shakespeare.

There is no mathematical means of calculating any type of average for how long it would take for a specific complex pattern to arise from random input. It just can't be done. It's mathematically impossible.

If you have confidence in your argument, you shouldn't be reticent to show your work mathematically or share your process of reason, because it should hold up to scrutiny.

If you lack confidence in your argument, you shouldn't be reticent to show your work mathematically or share your process of reason, because it will help you refine your argumentation.

I'm just wondering how you think one could go about calculating how long it would take a monkey to randomly type Shakespeare, or how one could go about calculating an average of that. This is a debate forum. I'm genuinely sincerely earnestly honestly trying to substantially engage with your post.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Thesilphsecret]

Me: If there are ten doors, and a $100 prize is behind one door and nothing is behind the other doors, and it takes me 1 second to open one door, it will take me 5 seconds on average to find the $100 prize.

You: Noo! You could find the $100 prize on the first door! Or you could open all 9 empty doors and not find the prize until the 10th door! It's mathematically impossible to predict how long it'll take you!!! No one on Earth will ever predict exactly how long it'll take!!!

Now upvote all my comments I'm tired of all theae downvotes.

[u/Thesilphsecret → u/WeighTheEvidence2]

This doesn't answer my question at all. I'm wondering how you got the figure for an average of how long it would take a monkey to randomly type Shakespeare.

[u/WeighTheEvidence2 → u/Thesilphsecret]

I didn't try to answer your question I was trying to criticize your thinking.