7Mon5keys an/d ?typewriteeers an@d stufGf

by sleepy 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  I have often heard the claim that if you sit a load of monkeys down with a load of type writers they would evntualy write the entire works of shakespeare.The idea being that given enought time anything can happen.This is usually used in support of evolution.

  But this aurgument just as well fits creation.If given enought time anything can happen then being created by a God and it looking like evolution is one of them!

  So is it the case that given enought time anything can happen?

  Well no.Or maybe .You see what do we mean by anything?Well most people might think that anything you can think of.But things you can think of are only conceptual, they exist in your brain and not necessraily as real things that could happen.People used to say to me "God can do anything" but a god could if all powerful only do what is possible not conceptual.So given enought time or power only things that can happen , can happen.Since we don't fully know what can or can't happen , then having enought time is irrelevant if the thing cant actually happen.

  Beside this sitting down monkeys at type writters would never work for a number of reasons.They would die first for a start, and could you get them type for long enought without them running off and humping each other?Where does the paper come from, the ink.What happens when the typewriters break.Where does all the waste go?

  So you actually nead the right mechanism to get the desired result , some mechanisms will never work no matter how long you give it.

  So in order to get the desired results from a seamingly random situation you nead a setup that can indeed produce those results without intivention, other wise the result is not random.

  With evolution you have some of those factors.A random choise of DNA which in turn can be self regulating in further choices of DNA.But does the fact that you can get some pretty complex results over a long time just messing with DNA prove that this can , and did prouduce the human brain and consciousness.

  To know the answer we would have to know what these things are exactlly and how they work.Without knowing how they work how can we say how they were made?

  It may indeed be the case that they were made this way.But we do not know the limits of natural selection neither do we know exactally what it is capable of.We don't know that the system is capable of producing the "desired" result.Does it like the monkey need help in achieving its "goal"?

  So things that seam complex can indeed be produced in random situations given enought time and the right mechanism.But what things a random situation is capable of producing are dermined by the mechanism used and the limits of it.What things actually are producable are not down to the human mind but the nature of the universe.

  By the way no monkeys were harmend in the making of this post.

  Edited by - sleepy on 20 July 2002 10:32:20
• 

  Francois

  "Beside this sitting down monkeys at type writters would never work for a number of reasons.They would die first for a start, and could you get them type for long enought without them running off and humping each other?Where does the paper come from, the ink.What happens when the typewriters break.Where does all the waste go? "

  Sleepy, I don't think you've gotten into the spirit of this example quite deep enough. These objections are irrelevant. On the other hand, maybe you're just not being serious and I missed it.

  francois

  note - sleepy was not harmed in the making of this post. neither was I.
• 

  sleepy

  I know the monkey thing is not ment to be taken literaly.

  "These objections are irrelevant"

  No the're not.

  The point is that the monkey example does highligth deficientcies in the concept that given enought time anything will happen .It wont.You need the right mechanism ,if it doesn't exist then it doesn't matter how long you've got nothing will happen or a least not the result you are hopping for.

  Fran6cois wa9s not h?aarmed in the making of+ this posyDt.

  Sleepy the Monkey.
• 

  expatbrit

  Sleepy:

  An all-powerful God that can only do the possible and not the conceptual is a self-contradicting statement, is it not?

  If God can only do the possible, then there must be impossible things that God cannot do. If so, God is bound by a framework independent of himself. Since God is constrained, he is not the most powerful thing in the universe and is not all-powerful. How did such a framework arise? Which being determined what is and is not possible?

  Interestingly, a similar line of thought can be used on the question: can morality exist apart from God?

  Expatbrit

  p.s. there's a chimpanzee here wanting to talk about a lawsuit for defamation. Can you deal with him?
• 

  sleepy

  Expat,

  Thats just a word problem.Unless its just my useage of the terms.But all means the whole amount or extent of.So an all powerful god has maximum use of power, but the power is limited by what amount of power there can actually be.

  A bit like the idea non infinate universe.You could always imagine a bigger one in your head, but in reality the universe is bound by whatever laws its under.

  If there was a God(big ?) why should his limits have anything to do with measures we put on things.

  There was a time when people thought speed was infinate , you could forever go faster.For there to be a limit seamed strange.But indeed it seems there is a limit.

  What turns out to be true or possible doen't have to fit in with the way we think or describe things.

  ?By tHe5 wa#y is the Chiiiimp called <Gary>?
• 

  SixofNine

  It (almost) goes without saying that if you give seven monkeys typewriters, no matter how many billions of years later (fantasizing that this is possible), you will not end up with the complete works of Shakespeare. For that matter, you won't even have a page of Shakespear.

  I see only two possibilities:

  A) Could you have gotten this switched around in your mind, sleepy? The saying actually meaning that one could never come up with the words of Shakespeare, and therefore evolution is not supported?

  B) The scenario was invented by a moron.
• 

  teejay

  A pointless discussion, but I'll bite...

  The Internet has once and for all disproved the idea that sitting monkeys at keyboards could *ever* produce the works of Shakespeare. Ha!

  On a more "serious" note, god could be the most powerful, even ALL-powerful (I guess) but still constrained by the natural framework that has been established. An example: the bible's revelation that god can't lie. So, even 'god' is limited, though (all?) powerful. Those limits might very well exceed what humans think are possible, thereby making the acts of god seem impossible when in fact they aren't.

  There was a time when most humans would have never considered it possible for humans to board a machine and take off from the earth's surface and safely land thousands of miles away. Back then, such *was* "impossible." Today, it's an everyday occurrence. Are any natural laws being violated? Of course not... just the contrary. For air travel to work, natural laws must be followed.

  The same is true of future technological advances. Things that might seem impossible today will be everyday occurrences in the future, but still only within the framework of natural laws.

  It is inaccurate to say that EVERYTHING or ANYTHING is possible. It's not.