• Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think, they mean across generations. Theoretically, infinite generations could follow, with therefore infinite new humans.

      Either way, it doesn’t actually need to be infinite, but rather just approaching infinity, to give high enough of a chance for a monkey to produce hamlet. Even just the 8 billion humans alive are already a pretty massive number of monkeys.

      • aname@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But universe is is finite with finite ending. Humans will die out way before the heat death of the universe

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          But universe is is finite with finite ending.

          I don’t think there’s scientific consensus about that, is there?

          • aname@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Finiteness of the universe is not certain, but inevitability of entropy is pretty sure.

  • onion@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    “Ford!” he said, "there’s an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out.

  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is pretty dumb, the whole point of the monkey with typewriters thing is that they’re typing random characters, not knowing the language.

    • Poplar?@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re right, but it isnt trying to actually argue that, its a joke.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        6 months ago

        I understand it’s a joke, but it’s a poorly-formed joke that exposes its writer not understanding the thing they’re riffing on, lol.

        Would be kind of like making a joke based on a stereotype of NBA players mostly being redheads, with no such stereotype existing, lol.

        • Poplar?@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Jokes necessarily often leave behind details to work.

          Here the whole joke is pointing out similarities we see are forced.

          And besides, it’s obvious the author was intentionally being “wrong”, otherwise we’d be suggesting the author assumed the thought-experiment was monkeys who knew language, intentionally typing out great works. That’s a pretty useless situation to make up, it doesn’t suggest anything interesting.

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The joke is that the writer is intentionally misunderstanding.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          you can take the redditor out of reddit, but you can’t take reddit out of the redditor.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The meta of the joke, as well as the philosophical idea that underpins it, is that the universe is based in probability and we are the result of those infinite dice rolls eventually making a human race that can think and be conscious and create Hamlet.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      But what is random, really? Why did those monkeys smash the keys that they did?

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    So the experiment was a success then? What are we still doing here? Are we supposed to be writing Hamlet II: Electric Boogaloo? 2 Hamlet 2 Furious?

  • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    hjfhsi ibghrkbkjkab orulkjd obno pmykb gthskt a otjsnono wobfrtinoe Hamlet hbjnsthon vjbigl hjkkohs jwaklnesgk;]]]]]];

  • dumbass@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I cant wait for one of the monkeys to write " Plibious Montgomery: A tale of 37 doughnuts and the rise and fall of the neo llama consortiumismship."