Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton’s and Leibnez’s calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor’s sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them

Yeah I think we’re on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what’s improbable possible and doesn’t make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn’t undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results.

But they still would be limited to only what monkeys can actually do with typewriters given enough time or monkeys to do everything a monkey will do with a typewriter.

Infinity only allows anything that can happen to happen no matter how unlikely to happen, but it doesn’t allow something that has 0% likelihood to happen like a monkey turning into a cup to happen. If there are any 0% probability events necessary for the task then it wouldn’t happen regardless of the number of monkeys or given time.

Those are some of the conditions necessary for the probability calculation to result in a non zero chance of writing the works of Shakespeare. From the article:

Consider the probability of typing the word banana on a typewriter with 50 keys. Suppose that the keys are pressed independently and uniformly at random, meaning that each key has an equal chance of being pressed regardless of what keys had been pressed previously. The chance that the first letter typed is ‘b’ is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is ‘a’ is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the probability of the first six letters spelling banana is:

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15,625,000,000.

The result is less than one in 15 billion, but not zero.

But if they weren’t independent, say every time a monkey hits b their lack of fine motor skills causes them to also hit yhb all together, then even infinite monkeys with infinite time wouldn’t be able to type banana. Or if after hitting b they keep hitting b and ignore all the other keys they would never type banana. Evenly distributed just makes sure they can hit every key, it can take some unevenness like you mentioned j and some other letters come up very rarely. But if they never hit a or e you’re never going to get Hamlet.

The defeater is each key needs to be statistically as likely as any other key to be pressed next, i.e. statistically independent events. For example after a monkey pressed S they are then just as likely to press K as W. If there is any reason they prefer a key or sequence you don’t get a normal distribution and they probably will never create any of Shakespeare’s works.

Alt: wool lined moccasin

You can explore the universe without traveling the universe; JWST, DESI, LIGO, Hubble, etc telescopes, interferometers, and other detection and measurement devices are giving us a ton of data reshaping our understanding of the universe.

What are you going to do, just destroy an entire farrier industry? Think of the economy we can’t build roads to other cities when we need to take care of <insert things we can work on fixing today without ignoring new frontiers and technologies>.

Of course it’s flat, it’s covered with water and none of it is carbonated

Or if you want to go biblical, male and property