How many of you know about this hypothesis? In short, it is an imaginary library that contains all the books that have been, will be and could be written, in all the languages and all variations. The library is structured like a honeycomb, with room-sized hexagons, each hexagon has many books, and overall it contains about 10^4677×410 pages. There is an online version of this, using some complex algorithms. If we were to assume that the algorithm would generate only the pages with words of the English language, using the simplest possible vocabulary of about 20000 words, all lowercase letters with no symbols, and if we apply the need for some grammatical rules (if it can be done), how long would it take for some computer to analyze all the possibilities and store the relevant coherent pages into finished books; thus finding any and all knowledge at random?
You can assume that it's a quantum computer. Is this feasible?
>>7998801
Who gets root access?
>>7998801
You will probably end up with sickass-long word chains for things the program can't describe with the words it has accurately.
>hypothesis
nah
>>7998801
Many, many more characters than the atoms in the universe.
>>7998801
If there is no limit on the number of characters there are an infinite amount of possibilities
>>7998801
>any and all knowledge
and its anti-knowledge
>implying a regular algorithm can generate irregular language content
>>7998816
Well english isn't my native language, but perhaps then we could use the grammatical rules of some other languages? for example latin has very strict rules for forming sentences, regarding the order and everything
for example if its the final word in a sentence and its a regular tense, the last word can be the verb and nothing else. Surely there are similar modern languages?
>>7998827
I understand this, but does it mean that such immense data is impossible to store?
>>7998832
not really, since the language is limited, but the possibilities are very, very, very numerous
>>7998833
That is actually a good point... It would contain false information too. Still im curious if it could be done.
>>7998839
everything, including language, has patterns, just complex ones. It doesn't have to be a "regular" algorithm.
>>7998864
>not knowing basic difference between a generated language and a descriptive language.
Sure there are patterns but is that enough, I doubt so.
Hasn't this been done? - https://libraryofbabel.info/
If y'all are serious about this I feel very bad for you. This is trivial shit.
Even if such a thing were possible, it would be absolutely useless as a method of obtaining knowledge. Yes, there would be a book in there somewhere (really, millions of books with minute variations) that contained the objective answers to every big question humanity has ever wondered about. There would also be trillions upon trillions of books that contained "answers" to those questions that were completely incorrect, and there would be no way at all to tell which was which.
>>7998801
I only could think of Borges when i read the title of this thread
>>7998801
This is the worst of all possible ways to find knowledge, any idiot can see that.
>>7998801
Yes, but you'd have trillions upon trillions of books about the same thing just reworded slightly different
>>8000637
like philosophy... almost as if it were all written by a bunch of stoned apes with slight physical differences resulting in vastly different experiences.
