An experiment??

[TheTrueCentrist]

26+32+10=68, so 68[sup]80[/sup]~10[sup]146[/sup] which is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Using 11 characters in the phrase “God is love” (excluding quotes, obviously), there’s a total of 68[sup]11[/sup]~10[sup]20[/sup]. You still would not be able to write this in the total life-time of the universe, assuming a one-second-per-trial basis.

The problem with using random placement of characters is that there are more chances of gibberish than there are chances coherent words. There is only one way to write “the” but there are 3[sup]68[/sup]~10[sup]32[/sup] different combinations of three characters (3[sup]26[/sup]~10[sup]12[/sup] for letters only)! What you write is not random. Nor is what anyone else writes. It comes from structured syntax and known spelling.

Nope, you’ve got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

 

[Qoeleth]

Nope, you’ve got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

Well spotted.

Now, the fact that the number of potential texts apparently exceeds the sixze and duration of the universe- does this imply that language (the text) is greater than ‘reality’?

If ‘the text’ is thus bigger and more varied than the universe- does this prove what Derrida said, “There is nothing outside the text.”?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Nope, you’ve got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]1[/sup] possibilities. If there’s 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]2[/sup] possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 68[sup]11[/sup] possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 68[sup]80[/sup] characters. Seems I did it right.

 

[Qoeleth]

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]1[/sup] possibilities. If there’s 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]2[/sup] possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 68[sup]11[/sup] possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 68[sup]80[/sup] characters. Seems I did it right.

Yes, that does seem right.
The number of possibilities (letters or characters), to the power of how many spaces there are.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Nope, you’ve got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

All u gotta do is manually figure how many pairs in 9…then you’ll see the mistake in the multiplying out in a visual. For pairs it always one less…so pairs in 9 add 87654321
…pairs in 4…add 321…ok so 6…lets see if its right.

1-4, 1-3, 1-2…2-4,2-3…3-4… thats 6…your idea would have said 16 (4 times 4

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]1[/sup] possibilities. If there’s 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there’s 68[sup]2[/sup] possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 68[sup]11[/sup] possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 68[sup]80[/sup] characters. Seems I did it right.

I see. It was in the second half that I messed up. It’s 68[sup]3[/sup]~10[sup]6[/sup]

 

[Just_Lurking]

In other words, it’s something similar to the “library” described in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel…?

Or perhaps The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well spotted.

Now, the fact that the number of potential texts apparently exceeds the sixze and duration of the universe- does this imply that language (the text) is greater than ‘reality’?

If ‘the text’ is thus bigger and more varied than the universe- does this prove what Derrida said, “There is nothing outside the text.”?

All this thought experiment of yours proves is that language is not random, which we knew in the first place. There are rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc that cannot be computed by the multiplicity of character placement.

 

[Gaber]

All this thought experiment of yours proves is that language is not random, which we knew in the first place. There are rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc that cannot be computed by the multiplicity of character placement.

So a large part of this conversation is based on literalism, or the idea that the word is its referent?

 

[Qoeleth]

So a large part of this conversation is based on literalism, or the idea that the word is its referent?

Of course. Ultimately all words are their own referents. The distinction between signifier and signified is a fiction.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Of course. Ultimately all words are their own referents. The distinction between signifier and signified is a fiction.

I see. So the word ‘tree’ is the same as an actual tree?

 

[shainski]

All u gotta do is manually figure how many pairs in 9…then you’ll see the mistake in the multiplying out in a visual. For pairs it always one less…so pairs in 9 add 87654321
…pairs in 4…add 321…ok so 6…lets see if its right.

1-4, 1-3, 1-2…2-4,2-3…3-4… thats 6…your idea would have said 16 (4 times 4

it took me a while to figure out what you were saying - but it’s not correct. Since one can use the same symbol for both in a pair, then using your example we would have

1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4

that’s 16! which is 4x4 or 4^2.

in TheTrueChemist’s reasoning - you have to be able to use the same letters more than once on a page.

 

[Poseidon]

Well there is the problem…you just need smaller font!

Or you could write it in Chinese. If we use the 6,000 or so characters that are used commonly there would be 6000^3000 combinations, which makes a number too big for any calculator I own to calculate. If you really want to get up there, you could use the 100,000 characters that are in certain Chinese dictionaries. Now that would be a big number! 100,000^3000. Yikes.

 

[Poseidon]

The number 10[sup]5400[/sup] represents (roughly) the possible combinations of 68 characters available on a sheet of 216 x 280 (mm) piece of paper that contains about 3000 total possible characters. It is possible that the first sheet of paper has the best poem ever written, for example (some of the other examples Qoeleth gave I do not believe could fit on a single sheet of paper as he claims).

If Qoeleth had started this program at the beginning of time 14.6 billion years ago,

• only about 10[sup]17[/sup] pages would be written at one page per second (pps)
• about 10[sup]17[/sup] pages would be written at 100 pps
• about 10[sup]23[/sup] pages would be written at 1,000,000 pps
• and so on

Clearly, in order to write 10[sup]5400[/sup] pages in the time of the universe, one would need to spit out 10[sup]5383[/sup] pages per second. Quite impossible.

Not to mention all those pages would have to be analyzed at 10[sup]5383[/sup] pps for poetry, cures for cancer, etc.

 

[Qoeleth]

Ok- let’s add another consideration to the experiment. Clearly the number of wonderful poems, profound truths, true theorems, etc. is not finite- but rather is infinite, since an infinite number of profound truths, wonderful poems, or wise proverbs could be spoken of every moment or atom in the universe.

Therefore, the probability of such a page being produced is also infinite. Now, if the proability is infinite (indeed, it must exceed 100%, since the number of possible pages, while large, is not infinite), not only CAN and WILL it happen, but it MUST have happened already.

 

[shainski]

Ok- let’s add another consideration to the experiment. Clearly the number of wonderful poems, profound truths, true theorems, etc. is not finite- but rather is infinite, since an infinite number of profound truths, wonderful poems, or wise proverbs could be spoken of every moment or atom in the universe.

Therefore, the probability of such a page being produced is also infinite. Now, if the proability is infinite (indeed, it must exceed 100%, since the number of possible pages, while large, is not infinite), not only CAN and WILL it happen, but it MUST have happened already.

at what point would it be easier to recreate this truth than to find it?

If i told you that there is a certain grain of sand on the earth that, if you found, i would pay you $100 million dollars - would you even consider looking for it?

Not only would you have to sift through all the grains of sand on the earth - would you recognize it if you did find it?

I think the same here. If there were some page in some book somewhere on the earth - already printed that contained all the things you were looking for - even if you did come across it (which would be extremely unlikely) - would you recognize it?

It seems to me that it would be far easier to discover the truth or write that poem for yourself.

 

[WillP]

Consider this- imagine the possibilities of what could be expressed on a single page of text. Such a page of text could possibly express:

• an infinitely true and perfectly expressed and summarised formulation of the meaning of life;
• a true and clear explanation of Trinity, the problem of evil, etc.
• the true biography of everyone who ever lived,
• the best poem every written,
• the secret name of God (if you believe in that kind of thing)
• a description of the scientific principle for a time machine, or cold fusion generator, a cure for cancer, or any number of things not yet invented.

Now, given the finitude of letters and other standard characters (puncutation marks, digits, etc.) it is obvious that the number of combinations making a single typed page is also finite. Maybe some mathematically minded person could work it out, as to hoe many combinations there could be.

So, this is my proposed experiment- set up a computer to type at random letters, characters, punction and spaces. This will produce a finite number of typed sheets. Read through each typed sheet to find the sheet which contains every conceivable truth.

Would it work?

Wouldn’t there also be an inordinate multitude of erroneous answers to these profound questions as well? Somewhere in the mix wouldn’t the cure for cancer come up as “take two aspirin and call me in the morning?”

 

[Qoeleth]

at what point would it be easier to recreate this truth than to find it?

If i told you that there is a certain grain of sand on the earth that, if you found, i would pay you $100 million dollars - would you even consider looking for it?

Not only would you have to sift through all the grains of sand on the earth - would you recognize it if you did find it?

I think the same here. If there were some page in some book somewhere on the earth - already printed that contained all the things you were looking for - even if you did come across it (which would be extremely unlikely) - would you recognize it?

It seems to me that it would be far easier to discover the truth or write that poem for yourself.

True. You would need to know the truth in order to recognise it as such, and would need to know the criteria for a wonderful poem in order to recognise it.

This being the case, it would seem that we can only recognise truths that we already know to be truths. Therefore, nothing new can be learnt or discovered,

 

[Gaber]

True. You would need to know the truth in order to recognise it as such, and would need to know the criteria for a wonderful poem in order to recognise it.

This being the case, it would seem that we can only recognise truths that we already know to be truths. Therefore, nothing new can be learnt or discovered,

that lasr sentence is true as an absolute, but not relatively. And that owuld be the difficulty as well in discerning, eg, “…an infinitely true and perfectly expressed and summarised formulation of the meaning of life.” which in fact exists in a five word phrase. Or six, depending on which version you read in which language; I was thinking in English. Actually then, it could be just two words, two ways.

But relatively speaking, as in “new to me,” new knowledge from observation, discovery, or inculcation can grow infinitly. So if the first five-six words off the typewrter were there “right” ones, game over if you knew you knew what they meant, not just thought you did.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Ok- let’s add another consideration to the experiment. Clearly the number of wonderful poems, profound truths, true theorems, etc. is not finite- but rather is infinite, since an infinite number of profound truths, wonderful poems, or wise proverbs could be spoken of every moment or atom in the universe.

Therefore, the probability of such a page being produced is also infinite. Now, if the proability is infinite (indeed, it must exceed 100%, since the number of possible pages, while large, is not infinite), not only CAN and WILL it happen, but it MUST have happened already.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? A probability is defined as existing between 0 and 1 (0% and 100%), so it is not possible to have a probability over 1 (100%). It is stuff and nonsense to state it is possible.

Further, if you are asking for the probability of writing one page out of 10[sup]500[/sup], then the probability is not infinite but infinitesimal as the probability is defined as P = particular option / total options. Thus, you would have a probability of writing that particular page as 10[sup]-500[/sup]!!!

So no, it must not have happened already.