Something that’s has irked me for some time now is how many people latched onto the Atheist movement as an edgy teen but now look back on it in reverence and not shame. This seems to be a common theme in academia and is prevalent even in communities like this one. The lamentation of the “golden-age” of atheism is peak hubris. Dawkins, Hitchens, and crew were deconstructionists of the critical theory variety. Their lives were consumed by the need to disprove God and religion. However these were the shortsighted desires of pseudo-intellectuals, they accomplished nothing productive, and if anything, opened the door for the screaming children that replaced them. I don’t think Dawkins, in his wildest dreams, ever saw his fall come from his own hubris. The intellectual argument over dismantling religion somehow disproving the existence of a god is what fueled the SJWS and their own brand of hubris in the early 2000’s. BTW Dawkins, this is what happens when you remove the “tumor” of religion, you hack. As you see today, Dawkins was swallowed by the stupidity he helped bring about, the Maximilien Robespierre of the modern era, begging for trannies to not cut off his head.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
It’s a theory, most of math is a theory. Mathematically it would take trillions upon trillions of years based on the current metrics, far longer than our estimated timeline of earths existence. The scaled version show that monkeys were not capable of even baseline interest in the process. The concept would only work if the monkeys actively participated, which is redundant on its face.To pretend we could generate intelligent thought through random chance is as stupid as us pretending artificial intelligence developed itself. If ancient aliens participated in human sentience they likely did so with no care of us aside from being an experiment of their abilities. Sapience and intelligence are to completely different concepts, with the latter requiring the former to exist.
All of math is theory, but let's just say that mathematical theory and scientific theory are 2 vastly different concepts, even if many scientific theories worth anything can be written as mathematical theories.
[citation would be highly appreciated]. Because i too can pull numbers out of my ass. Besides, even if it takes trillions and trillions of years... why are you assuming Earth is somehow unique in Universe of trillions and trillions of planets that may have comparable initial conditions?
Yes, so what? If your issue with infinite monkey theorem is that it uses monkeys as example of someone who would produce random inputs instead of less biological source of randomness... Well, i can only say math is really not your strongest suit. I can only suspect it was not the strongest suit of someone who unironically setup such experiment either.
Given that general artificial intelligence does not exist and does not even seem to be possible given our current technology level and pace, your confidence is confusing.
This is just too spergy, the word youre looking for is theorem. Two completely separate concepts. A mathematical theory and a scientific theory are the same concept applied to two different aspects. A mathematical theorem is a provable concept, a mathematical theory is a concept that can be used to explain an actual occurrence.
Any mathematician who would insert a biological aspect that is easily fallible into a system is not a good mathematician, especially when trying to explain random variance. The point of the experiment was to essentially mock the creators of the theorem because it is a redundant analogy that wouldnt hold up in practice.
That was the point of the statement, hence the word pretend. Try to keep up.
Not at all.
Hence mathematicians don't use it as anything but a layman/idiomatic example with all implied restrictions it entails!
I am glad they tried to mock creators of the theorem that explicitly requires infinite amount of time and/or monkeys with very small amount of time and monkeys. Top tier rebuttal if i had seen one in first grade of elementary school, not by someone who would call himself adult man.
In which case your statement does not work because how do you know origin of something which does not yet exist? Or am i talking to a literal time traveler from IRL version of Terminator movies? For all we know, general purpose AI would really develop itself after being given enough hardware, because it does not fucking exist yet and in case of humans probably won't ever exist.
Good rebuttal, not being able to tell the difference between theory and theorem means that you’re not worth pursuing a conversation with. If you had infinite monkeys there would be infinite shit on keyboards, monkeys don’t magically grow sentience retard. You really can’t even grasp baseline philosophy or math, which leads me to again to you being a sperg. So you might be better off with Reddit.