Infinite shots

[Dali]

How do you know?

Because it fits the theory.

 

[NedL]

With Leica film cameras, maybe. With Leica digital they'd be too busy chimping....

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Because it fits the theory.

Of course, we may never have the technology to actually know.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Diapositivo]

If I gave an infinite number of Leica II cameras to an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite supply of film. In an infinite amount of time, would they be able to produce a shot like the Puddle Jumper?

No because photography requires too much reasoning. Besides, they would not write on APUG and we would never know (given an infinite amount of time they will write some Shakespearean prose, but will be no clue to us that they have produced another puddle jumper ).

Possibly, given a decent and much less than infinite amount of monkey and a decent amount of colour and time they can create works of art which would be quite appreciated by some rich New York gallery client. Or, given some more time, they can certainly compose something with more musical meaning than the average Stockhausen production.

The problem would come when, after all the expense and effort, you try to capitalize on your genius monkey (you will "market" it as your genius monkey). Animal protection group will eat you alive for exploiting the genius of the unsuspecting monkey, you will be fined for not having respected hours limits, you will have to pay an infinite amount of past contributions to private insurance and social security, and you'll probably will have to re-educate your monkey to non-painting to compensate it from the violent deprivation of its monkey-ness. You will then have to reintroduce it among its peers (somewhere between art critics or journalists writing about economics).

I would not embark in such an endeavour.

 

[cliveh]

I sometimes listed to Stockhausen "Helicopter String Quartet" when driving. Could monkeys really produce music like this?

 

[Dali]

Of course, we may never have the technology to actually know.

You know it as long as the observation is in accordance with the theory.

 

[Klainmeister]

I sometimes listed to Stockhausen "Helicopter String Quartet" when driving. Could monkeys really produce music like this?

Wake up well before dawn at a wildlife refuge this winter and listen to the morning chorus.

 

[lxdude]

With Leica film cameras, maybe. With Leica digital they'd be too busy chimping....

 

[Vaughn]

An infinite number of monkeys would make for way too much monkey poop.

(And having been shat upon in the rainforests of Costa Rica, this is not a good thing. Fortunately the ocean was right there and a good swim took care of everything.)

 

[lxdude]

An infinite number of monkeys would make for way too much monkey poop.

(And having been shat upon in the rainforests of Costa Rica, this is not a good thing. Fortunately the ocean was right there and a good swim took care of everything.)

"I was in the rainforest all day, and boy, am I pooped!"

 

[michaelbsc]

If you give infinite time, then there may not be any time left to review those infinite shots take by infinite monkeys.

You can acheive something if you add little 'knowledge' to those finite monkeys with finite cameras.

Well, technically if you really mean infinite then eventually every possible combination of the 2.5 x 10^1089 elementary particles in the observable universe will present. Then repeat.

 

[Diapositivo]

I sometimes listed to Stockhausen "Helicopter String Quartet" when driving. Could monkeys really produce music like this?

They would produce far better music than that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13D1YY_BvWU

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Because it fits the theory.

How often has human theory been wrong?

If the universe is not infinite, what is beyond the 'end'? Surely there must be something there.

 

[litody]

How often has human theory been wrong?

If the universe is not infinite, what is beyond the 'end'? Surely there must be something there.

Look for the definition of Universe. It doesn't mean everything. It means everything we know about. We can't define what we don't know about or don't have the mathematical tools to predict. i.e. Nobody has a clue about what exists or not outside of the universe and just because we think something must exist outside the universe doesn't make it part of the universe until we can prove it and just because we don't know about it doesn't make the universe infinite.
Simple answer for you is that because the universe is expanding it should be bleeding obvious it isn't infinite and there is something outside it for it to expand into but we don't know what.

 

[Dali]

How often has human theory been wrong?

If the universe is not infinite, what is beyond the 'end'? Surely there must be something there.

Knowledge can be wrong if the theory is wrong. Nothing is definitive and what was right one day could be wrong the day after. Newton's laws were considered as right for centuries and were replaced in the 20th century by other laws (einstein et al.). But if you want to send a satellite around the Earth, it is way enough. This approach is much more constructive than belief (or dogma) which explains nothing.

Back to the (in)finite universe. What is beyond the end? Nothing as there is no "end". Difficult to visualize 'cause it does not fit our everyday's experience but it is one logical way to explain what astronomers observe.

If the universe was infinite (without limit), reality would be much more difficult to explain. back to the dogma thing: an assertion without any explanation.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Look for the definition of Universe. It doesn't mean everything. It means everything we know about. We can't define what we don't know about or don't have the mathematical tools to predict. i.e. Nobody has a clue about what exists or not outside of the universe and just because we think something must exist outside the universe doesn't make it part of the universe until we can prove it and just because we don't know about it doesn't make the universe infinite.
Simple answer for you is that because the universe is expanding it should be bleeding obvious it isn't infinite and there is something outside it for it to expand into but we don't know what.

Here's an interesting documentary regarding time. It deals with some of the duplicity I'm referring to. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time

Universe has many definitions, depending on who you ask.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/universe
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=universe
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe?s=t
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universe
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/universe
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/universe
etc...

 

[litody]

yes I know but astrophysicists seem to be in agreement that it is expanding and therefore if its infinite, infinite doesn't mean what you and I think it does. It's a philosophical problem for you to satisfy yourself with. Do you think it's infinite?

I would add that since human knowledge is very far from being infinite we can only define within those finite limits of knowledge. Therefore it is impossible define something as being infinite since we don't have the knowledge to do so. That is what expanding the boundaries of knowledge are all about. Of course there will be differences of opinion when you are dealing with unproved theories. Until the theories are proved they are just theories and not fact. And until knowledge is infinite there will always be uncertainty and whilst there is uncertainty you can't say the unverse is infinite or not but at the moment we have applied the limits of our knowledge to the definition of the universe and that doesn't include everything so currently the universe is finite.
Just my opinion YMMV

 

[litody]

and another thing. All those dictionaries keep saying space. What is space? Answer that and you'll be doing well.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

yes I know but astrophysicists seem to be in agreement that it is expanding and therefore if its infinite, infinite doesn't mean what you and I think it does. It's a philosophical problem for you to satisfy yourself with. Do you think it's infinite?

I would add that since human knowledge is very far from being infinite we can only define within those finite limits of knowledge. Therefore it is impossible define something as being infinite since we don't have the knowledge to do so. That is what expanding the boundaries of knowledge are all about. Of course there will be differences of opinion when you are dealing with unproved theories. Until the theories are proved they are just theories and not fact. And until knowledge is infinite there will always be uncertainty and whilst there is uncertainty you can't say the unverse is infinite or not but at the moment we have applied the limits of our knowledge to the definition of the universe and that doesn't include everything so currently the universe is finite.
Just my opinion YMMV

So, there's consensus among a group of people who are not quite sure whether they are correct? I'll take that as a definition any day.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't wish to contradict you. But until somebody can prove that 'whatever is around us out there' is one way or the other, we can assume anything we want, theorizing ad nauseum, including an infinite place.

What is space? It is a concept invented by humans, and a very long time ago, so the definition will only be as good as our current understanding of it.

 

[litody]

What is space? It is a concept invented by humans, and a very long time ago, so the definition will only be as good as our current understanding of it.

exactly

 

[Bill Burk]

For that matter what is knowledge? Is it the count of synapses that have arranged into a pattern in the sum of all humans who have had brains that had synapses in them? And because the number of humans who have thus far existed can be counted, it's finite?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For that matter what is knowledge? Is it the count of synapses that have arranged into a pattern in the sum of all humans who have had brains that had synapses in them? And because the number of humans who have thus far existed can be counted, it's finite?

And 'knowledge' is only expanded when people look beyond conventionally accepted 'knowledge'.

 

[Dali]

But until somebody can prove that 'whatever is around us out there' is one way or the other, we can assume anything we want, theorizing ad nauseum, including an infinite place.

I would agree as long as your theory matches with the observation. Everyone is free to believe what he wants but it has nothing to do with knowledge and is somewhat purely sterile (apart from the psychological aspect).

 

[cliveh]

Meanwhile those infinite amount of monkeys do seem to be spending an awful long time trying to reload those leica IIs.

 

[Diapositivo]

Because it fits the theory.

Fitting the theory is not enough.

I don't buy the scientific reasoning that something is scientifically true because it fits within one theory which has not yet been contradicted (or improved) by another theory.

The scientifically correct reasoning would be that until the model (the theory) helps me doing something it is valid within that limited scope. But my limited model is not THE TRUTH. It is just a tool in my knowledge toolbox. And I can get a better tool tomorrow. I can, because it's a tool and not the "ultimate knowledge". It would be impossible to improve on that.

Saying that the universe is limited because human means do not "see" much beyond a certain (huge) distance and because it is (or appears to be) "expanding" does not sound scientific to me.

An "infinite" (whatever that means) number of universes could exists and expand, or contract, or play leapfrog with each other without us knowing or suspecting. Even if our "universe" were really expanding (not everybody agrees but that's another point) that doesn't mean it is the only universe or, for that matter, the only KIND of universe. There could be as many different universes as there are different animal species on Earth, and we would be discussing our universe just like a deep-see crab would think there is no universe without water.

What we call "void" could actually be filled with some sort of substance of which we do not even suspect the existence. And by the way, even if "void " actually exists and is "void", "void" exists so it is and if it is, is part of the infinite, although a void infinite. An infinite void could not be negated.

This kind of questions will never have and answer because human ability to study this kind of problems stops much before human ability to ask this kind of questions.

I have nothing against atheism and I guess I have been an atheist (or, rather, a sceptic, which is different) myself but I do find that some atheist scientists try to use science to forward their own prejudicial idea and paint it with scientific objectivity.

Honest scientists when confronted with this kind of questions just raise their hands and declare the insufficiency of scientific means to give any kind of answer.

Any other position is IMO motivated by meta-scientific prejudices.