Відео

Okay, you're making the same error Joe did. This isn't a real-life scenario that's being pitched. This is just a metaphor to illustrate the infiniteness of infinity. The monkey in this scenario is being used as a device to introduce randomness as they can't differentiate between the keys on the typewriter but are still capable of hitting keys like a human. So instead of a human choosing a key to hit, the monkey randomly picks one of the 50 or so keys on the keyboard. It could just as easily be a chipmunk standing on a calculator, calculating the exact distance to the sun in inches, but calculators weren't around when this allegory was made up. A typewriter has a finite number of keys. The Complete Works of Shakespeare has a finite number of characters in one pattern. In an infinite amount of time, the monkey will press the finite number of keys an infinite amount of times in an infinite amount of patterns, including that of The Complete Works of Shakespeare. There is a bit more nuance here, but that’s the gist.

@@MuchkinCat-yk9in first thank you for the well thought out and intelligent reply. Secondly I'm not so sure. The context of the conversation is of the multiverse having an infinite amount of possibilities at every possible change of action or thought of everything in existence that can create an action or reaction to a previous action or thought. The monkey scenario, or whatever is hitting the keys at random is used to 'try' and have our minds wrap around that by secluding this phenomenon to a set situation with a set amount of keys and patterns. In comparison this scenario is not even a grain of sand if the entire universe was filled with sand. The theory suggest the same Universe in an infinite amount of different possibilities. Ill speak for myself but I start to lose track around a trillion. That's when it starts to breakdown for me and I lose grasp of how big that number actually is. So I take a trillion and multiply it by a trillion and now I've for sure lost grasp of the situation. Then take that number and multiply it by a quadrillion and that number is not even .00000000001% of infinity. In fact the number as a % can't even exist as examples of possible outcome in the multiverse. That's why I just can't buy into that part of the theory. Maybe it's my feeble brain. Now I'm not saying the multiverse can't be real because I don't buy into that aspect. What I do find feasible if the multiverse is real is that there would be branches leading to alternate realities that once set down that path will remain the same stemming back to wherever it branched. Basically when the Universe was at a very young age whichever multiverse branched leading to the creation of this particular solar system is set in stone. Maybe a few more branches after that where a scenario occured like a moon didn't make it leading to different types of planets and or Earths but from where we are now would have been set before Earth was even formed and unchangeable elsewhere in a multiverse. That's just my theory if the multiverse were real and assuming we don't have free will. But of course I have no idea at the end of the day.

Or you could keep regurgitating all your negative thoughts.

@@petraravn5421 It's involuntary.

If it's an infinite universe why would it be "full" of anything?

False what makes it illegall is when you own a medicinal card

Monkeys pressing keys is within the realms of possibility. Base metals turning to gold isn't.

Why is that?

@@benjames1497 There's a long list of things that just can't get cleared up for me by vegans that almost always get responded to with limitless hostility, and it's almost always a hostile attitude to anyone who isn't a practicing vegan. Vegans claim using animal products in any way is unethical, yet they all do it. Their clothes, plastics, equipment, and even their food all comes to or is created from the use of animal byproducts. If you bring that up to them they call you liar and get really upset. I work in manufacturing. I know how the bread is buttered. Sure, the clothing itself isn't made out of animals, but that equipment was created and likely is lubricated and maintained with the use of animal products. Then excuses just get made as a necessary and avoidable evil. Things like almonds rely heavily on beekeeping (which isn't vegan to my understanding because it's "mean" to bees), mono-cropping, and land clearing on a scale often not imagined. The amount of environmental damage this causes to an ecosystem is already intense, but done in this manner negatively impacts wildlife so drastically that the only question is whether it'll be a localized extinction event or not for dozens of species. Yet somehow almonds are considered totally fine despite not a one of them coming to be in a way a vegan should consider tolerable at all if it's actually about minimizing harm. Nevermind the loads of studies finding that a vegan lifestyle requires more acreage than one that does not by a longshot. All gets called lies or necessary evil. I keep bees, and hope to get efficient enough at it to run my own full time operation doing it someday. I've been called all manner of slurs for doing this by vegans who use products from beeswax, honey, pollen gathered by bees, or even propolis. I even talked to one who was doing sting therapy (which always costs the life of the bee). It boggles my mind that I feed them supplementally, care for them medically, see to every want or need they've got, and I'm the "bad guy" for taking honey (which they overproduce) and feeding them exactly what they prefer over honey itself (there's tons of research on this), and get accused of "displacing local pollinators" by people who know literally nothing about insects, pollination, or the plants involved (tons of research on that topic publicly available, too). To ice that cake I've read about vegans freeing mink to starve to death in my area and have personally had to deal with them smashing up hives (in which they delete my bees to save the bees from me because that makes any sense). Meanwhile palm oil is in heavy demand by vegans. That means literally removing the rainforest, mono-cropping production, and taking every last nutrient they can out of the soil and moving on to the next patch. And, no, it is brutally inefficient and the acreage required for the yield surpasses even avocados or soy. Just recruiting another vegan comes with a high likelihood there's gonna be less orangutans on Earth. I get told off for bringing that up too, and told that it isn't necessary for a vegan lifestyle even though it's one of the most purchased products by vegans with almost zero demand outside their use of it. Which brings up the whole global issue. This is a rich person's lifestyle that requires a massive carbon footprint in the name of saving the planet with the immense manufacturing, shipping, and energy requirements needed to sustain the lifestyle of someone who claims they try to do very little of that. Hostility for bringing that up, too. One of the ways to get around that is getting your own food, which my family does. My wife's garden is under constant assault by wildlife looking for an easy score. I don't care how deer, rabbit, skunk, raccoon, squirrel, or turkey proof your garden is: One or more of those species are getting into it (and even ones you didn't think were interested) and literally stealing your time, labor, and food required to feed your family instead of driving an hour to get to the grocery store full of GMO products made by mono-cropping. Kid you not I've seen foxes eating pumpkins. If it's something I can legally take for that time of year, like a rabbit, I'll do it and eat it (the animals taken out protecting vegan crops aren't even eaten. Just wasted.). Somehow that means I'm the bad guy yet again for not wasting the animal or letting it starve to death. Reality is over twice as many animals starve to death in winter in my area than hunters harvest every year regardless of target species. Somehow an animal dying in seconds or less if done correctly and eating it is worse than it being offed by anything else. Nothing in nature gets "old" and goes peacefully. It's always brutal. Not according to the vegan. I hunt and fish, too, of which the proceeds go to making sure large tracts of land are appropriately managed and won't be clear cut for mono-cropping and the weird communes around me trying to destroy it so they can larp at being "one with the earth" or whatever while they literally dump their waste in the river (big problem where I am). I'm the bad guy again for even going as far to donating money to protect public lands because I get accused of "perpetuating the problem" with zero explanation on what it is. All of this is totally forgivable to a vegan if you're a non-westerner and poor, but not if you're poor and simply look white to them? They do not like that. You're just something that won't just "do better" and "get with the program" on it. I'm also compelled to bring up how vegans treat plants. It's not great. The field of plant intelligence is growing exponentially and the evidence that something we don't fully understand is going on is very strong. A lot of people scoff at it (who were funnily enough the same crowd in the 70's saying animals couldn't even feel pain because"science"), but every single vegan freaks out about it and calls it all manufactured lies if they even bother to look into the research on it. The sad reality is no life exists without consuming other life and there's zero getting around it. But, some are pretending they are, can, and that everyone else should do it like them or they're evil. Not many ask how they're getting these supplements or how they're made and what the cost of getting them in the first place is. Crazy rabbit hole, that one. Sprinkle all that with accusations of harming animals because I rescued a dog from getting destroyed and give him food and medical care (not to mention a ton of attention), let a couple cats roam my property and give them medical care, and put out seeds that birds like (so they leave my wife's garden alone)? Can't even have one face to face conversation with them without being accused of supporting factory farming (I don't), cruelty for sport (nothing I'm gonna do is meaner than what nature is about to and there's no sport in it), or that I love hurting the planet (which considering all this is a pretty funny take). Pretty hard to find common ground with someone who always treats you like you're Satan incarnate for simply not being able to digest exclusively plant matter as efficiently as them (not even kidding, that's been studied a bunch too). Sounds like a cognitive dissonance problem that's really staggering. Borderline out of control. Add to it that the ideology functions like a cult that isolates outsiders from members and treats every nonmember like an untouchable and it's even worse. Any criticism which can't be avoided is levied with unfounded accusations and cries of lying, insanity, or outright ignoring basic reality. Sprinkle some unfounded and false moral superiority with the illusion that they're being inherently better than anyone while tangentially doing even more damage and it's absolutely wild. Meanwhile, everyone else just wants to let people do what they find fulfilling without hurting other people, but veganism doesn't have that take. It's their goal to try and ruin the lives, reputations, and livelihoods of anyone opposed to them that doesn't even harm them. It all boils down to a "do what we say and ignore what we do" attitude that really rubs people like me the wrong way and makes them feel obligated to point it out. On the other side of that coin: There are people that can't digest meat and/or dairy. I have zero problems with them. I have zero problems with people who simply just don't like to eat meat or animal products, too. They don't behave in the "vegan" way, which is an actual lifestyle and ideology mapped out to devote your life to. There needs to be a different word for those rational, decent people because they're not Vegan even if their diet is extremely similar.

I really appreciate your thorough response - I see where most of your confusion is coming from. The primary issue is your misunderstanding of what veganism is: *“a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude-as far as is possible and practicable-all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals”* While I’m not vegan, I have to acknowledge that the ethical position is sound, hence my question.

@@benjames1497 That's a seriously weird definition. Where do you find that? It's sounds extremely "current year" linguistically and washed to be politically neutral for a very sensitive modern society. Veganism was set up as a godless religious philosophy with dogmatic doctrine that is screamed about how they should be interpreting endlessly. It's not even 100 years old. Also, totally a cult. There's no getting around that. And by their own definition they're unethical as you've defined it. Unless, of course, the point is to destroy the world as much as you need to just avoid eating and using animals to save the animals from being eaten and used. "Let us destroy the earth to eat only plants and abuse them and our planet to always value animal life over that of all others aside from the millions upon millions of animals we maim, displace, starve out, and ignore for the convenience of our delusional lifestyle of moral superiority of protecting the animals from the people who hurt them less than us!" Yeah... Totally ethical. Didn't realize that forcing extinction on orangutans to protect them was ethical. Doesn't sound like I'm confused at all, but every vegan sure is. I can't respect an ideology that directly destroys what it claims to protect and then accuses me of being the bad guy. How is that ethical on their part? The framing has to be based on the truth and objective fact, not "their truth," or whatever delusional loons call it now.

@@danorris5235 definition is from the vegan society. The essence of veganism is anything but Godless-it’s existed in various flavors for thousands of years. In fact, according to the Bible, man was intended to be vegan: 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. You’re making several non sequiturs. No doubt there are radical (and dumb) vegans, but there’s no denying that the ethics are sound. Mind you, depending on the context, eating a deer 🦌 may be more vegan than eating plants. It seems like you’re missing the forest for the trees presumably due to some unresolved cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing