First of all, hello!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Ok, now down to business. So, the postmodern theory basically says that nothing is original. We are just remixing and copying everything that is already there. Basically. But my thought is that we are defining originality in the wrong terms as something completely new in the absolute sense of the word. Yet wouldn't a unique combination of ingredients constitute something original? Take the infinite monkey theorem for example: Isn't the sheer probability of the same work of literature being created again a hallmark of its originality? The fact that only one person could write a given work, given the random probability of life events, experiences, word choice, etc. I'm asking because I'm a literature student and not a math student. Help me out here. Am I completely wrong on this or what? And furthermore, doesn't chaos theory support this idea, if the initial conditions are always changing, i.e., life - each moment. Doesn't that mean everything is 'original'? You would never get the same outcome again. Any author writing any book would never write the same exact words again if you changed one little things. Yes, no? Your thoughts, please.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Does Infinite Monkey Theorem Prove Originality?

Loading...

Similar Threads for Does Infinite Monkey |
---|

B How does r∪(-p∩q∩-r) simplify to r∪(-p∩q) ? |

I Problem with infinite decimal numbers? |

A How does it not contradict the Cohen's theorem? |

A Why does Polychoric Reduce to two Factors? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**