Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
A lighthearted math paper estimating the odds of chimpanzees randomly typing Shakespeare before the heat death of the universe has reignited interest in the “infinite monkey theorem.” Commenters note that the original theorem is a purely abstract statement about infinity, while the new work explores the practically zero probabilities in any finite universe and criticise media headlines for overstating its significance. The thread branches into broader arguments about randomness versus selection, the plausibility of evolution and abiogenesis over billions of years, and what extremely low but non-zero probabilities really imply in physical reality.
Scope of the Paper and Theorem
- Many commenters stress the classic “infinite monkey theorem” is purely about infinity: with infinite time and/or infinite monkeys, any finite text occurs with probability 1.
- The paper instead analyzes a finite case: finite chimps, finite typing rate, finite universe lifetime.
- Some think calling the original theorem “misleading” is itself misleading; the word “infinite” was always explicit.
- Others say the paper’s point matches this: what’s possible with infinity is effectively impossible within the physical universe.
Probability, Scale, and the Finite Universe
- Back-of-the-envelope calculations are shared: probability scales as alphabet_size^text_length; even with all chimps over the universe’s lifetime, Shakespeare-length strings are astronomically unlikely.
- One comment cites the paper’s figure of ~10^-7,228,454 chance within the universe lifetime.
- Very short strings are plausible; longer than ~80 characters already becomes effectively impossible at cosmic scales.
- Parallelization (many monkeys/computers) reduces the expected time but not enough to reach Shakespeare.
Media Framing and Seriousness of the Work
- Several see the paper as semi-humorous, possibly Ig Nobel–style, and note it had no special funding.
- Commenters criticize media coverage for implying the theorem is “disproven,” whereas the paper itself affirms the infinite theorem and only examines finite constraints.
Links to Evolution and Abiogenesis
- Part of the thread debates using monkey-typing analogies against evolution.
- One side argues: evolution is not “pure random typing”; mutations are random but selection is not, and there are many “good enough” DNA sequences, unlike a single exact Shakespeare text.
- Others remain skeptical that random mutation plus selection in a few billion years can yield current genomic complexity or abiogenesis, describing this as intuitively too unlikely.
- Counterarguments emphasize massive parallelism, incremental improvement, non-random physical/chemical patterns, and existing empirical support for evolution.
Infinity, Randomness, and Thought Experiments
- Discussion extends to bogosort, Boltzmann brains, Hilbert’s Hotel, Library of Babel, and spherical cows as similar “idealized” thought experiments.
- Some highlight that results about infinity are mathematically valid but physically unattainable, raising questions about their real-world interpretive value.
Monkeys, Metaphors, and Humor
- Multiple jokes about Simpsons’ “blurst of times,” LLMs as key-mashing monkeys, evolving smarter monkeys, and “we need more monkeys.”
- Several note that in reality monkeys aren’t random number generators, underscoring the thought-experiment nature of the setup.