Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:48:00 -
[211] - Quote
That is not physical proof... are you daft?
P.S. Apparently true randomness does not even exist in a computer simulation, am I right? So who knows what the reality of it is?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:49:00 -
[212] - Quote
For his next move, Eternum Praetorian will ask for proof that the red I see when I look at a certain patch of red paper is the same red he sees when he looks at the same patch of red paper. Sheesh.
Answer this extremely simple question: For every 2 separate streaks of N heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of N+1 heads - TRUE or FALSE ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:55:00 -
[213] - Quote
Akita T wrote:For his next move, Eternum Praetorian will ask for proof that the red I see when I look at a certain patch of red paper is the same red he sees when he looks at the same patch of red paper. Sheesh.
Answer this extremely simple question: For every 2 separate streaks of N heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of N+1 heads - TRUE or FALSE ?
This new generation of scientists.... ewww....
That is some bad bad science. This is why we got string theory, people ended up thinking that math and a chalkboard could interpret all of their reality without ever actually seeing it. Theory ---> Observation is the simplest equation of them all... and you seem to be casting it to the wind. You have been notified--what you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you. I will see you later for our soon to be statistical pseudoscience threadnaught rant.
Thx for the fun at least
I will say one thing Akita, you sure know your math. I hope you have allot of money in real life or your nerd brain is going to waste in your mothers basement.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:57:00 -
[214] - Quote
So you are denying that after a streak of N heads, there's a 50% chance that throw N+1 will be heads ? And you call me a bad scientist ? Laughable. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:04:00 -
[215] - Quote
Akita T wrote:So you are denying that after a streak of N heads, there's a 50% chance that throw N+1 will be heads ? And you call me a bad scientist ? Laughable.
It is called statistical theory for a reason. You still have to prove it.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:09:00 -
[216] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:It is called statistical theory for a reason. You still have to prove it. You're confusing "scientific theory" (a.k.a. "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment") with "scientific hypothesis" ("a testable but yet untested proposed explanation for a phenomenon"). Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.
P.S. Also, what's there to prove that an event that has a 50% chance of happening will on average happen 50% of the time ? It's kind of in its very freaking definition. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:10:00 -
[217] - Quote
Okay trollboy, one last try. If I flip a coin and get heads, the odds of the next one being heads is 50%. Akita and I have both plainly stated that and you can easily test it. That means no matter how many coins you toss, the odds of the next one being heads is 50% . Even if you get 100 heads in a row the odds never change. For it to be impossible to get X consecutive heads, at some point those odd MUST change. Unless you are willing to asset that the odd of a coin toss change based on the preferring tosses, then you rely entirely on an argument from incredulity and there's nothing further to discuss.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:15:00 -
[218] - Quote
It's not a troll.
Physical proof of concept should not be to much to ask of anyone, let alone a self-proclaimed "scientist". You should not get so mad at the messenger, look to thy own self TBH. You cannot supply evidence to support your claim, this does not mean that your claim is wrong, but does mean that it is still only a theory.
Simple really, but I understand if your anger (or ego) prevents you from admitting to that fact. It is a common trait TBH that inquiring minds would best be served to do without.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:18:00 -
[219] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Physical proof of concept should not be to much to ask of anyone It IS too much to ask if the length of the physical proof would surpass the storage capacity of the entire planet.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:24:00 -
[220] - Quote
Akita T wrote: Again, WHAT is in your opinion the chance of flipping heads on a perfectly fair coin ? Not a real coin, which is slightly biased, but a perfectly fair one. Is it somehow magically NOT 50% at some point ? And if so, at which exact point ? And WHY ?
In order t o fully address this question we would have to first answer the most basic question, does true randomness even exist? I mean, you keep coming up with these imaginary ideas (like infinity and an imaginary comply unbiased coin) but do they really even exist? In your imaginary world you can make anything do anything, but in the physical world it the reality of it might paint a different picture. That is why science requires observable proof.
That would req an entirely new thread.
Quote:It IS too much to ask if the length of the physical proof would surpass the storage capacity of the entire planet.
This is practicing avoidance. Make it smaller? Making it the largest possible value and then go for it. Also, the above statement is worthy of the short bus, since the output would not have to be recorded. Only the "hit" would have to be recorded and the rest can be referenced in scientific notation. Duh?
But at least we have gotten to the meat of the issue here... you have no observable proof after all do you? I am a little suprised TBH, because I thought you did. Oh well.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:27:00 -
[221] - Quote
Want physical proof for N=2 ? 10*2*2^2=80 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=80&cur=60-usd.0050c This should almost certainly contain a 2-heads streak.
Want physical proof for N=3 ? 10*3*2^3=240 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this TWO TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 3-heads streak.
Want physical proof for N=4 ? 10*4*2^4=640 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this FOUR TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 4-heads streak.
Want physical proof for N=5 ? 10*5*2^5=1,600 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this EIGHT TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 5-heads streak.
...
Want physical proof for N=10 ? 10*10*2^10=102,400 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this 512 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 10-heads streak.
...
Want physical proof for N=20 ? 10*20*2^20=209,715,200 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this 1,048,576 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 20-heads streak.
...
Want physical proof for N=30 ? 10*30*2^30=322,122,547,200 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this 1,610,612,736 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 30-heads streak.
...
Want physical proof for N=100 ? 10*100*2^100=1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376,000 http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c Use this 6,338,253,001,141,147,007,483,516,026,880 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 100-heads streak.
...
There you go, there's my physical proof. Go verify it. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:31:00 -
[222] - Quote
"Almost certain"
Not 100% definite. Right?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:33:00 -
[223] - Quote
Of freaking course not 100% definite. When did I ever say otherwise ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:43:00 -
[224] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Of freaking course not 100% definite. When did I ever say otherwise ?
P.S. However, pretty damn CLOSE to 100% for practical intents and purposes.
Sweet, then it is not 100% definite that and uncountable amount of monkeys can type Shakespeare and you can roll 10 billion billion heads in a row. I am glad we prodded on for 12 pages only do discover that the answer is "not entirety certain" after all.
Maybe it was your imaginary idea of infinity that was throwing you off?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:51:00 -
[225] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: I am glad we prodded on for 12 pages only do discover that the answer is "not entirety certain" after all. Except that this exact answer was already hinted at even in the first page (after which the discussion deviated), and expressed in clear text by page two first, and several times later. And you have already acknowledged it yourself a couple of times only to be "really surprised" every time it pops up again.
P.S. We've moved from "certainty at actual infinity which can't exist" (which is a pointless debate) a very long time ago, many pages earlier to "good chance after a finite yet very inconvenient length of time" (which is statistics). http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:02:00 -
[226] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote: I am glad we prodded on for 12 pages only do discover that the answer is "not entirety certain" after all. Except that this exact answer was already hinted at even in the first page (after which the discussion deviated), and expressed in clear text by page two first, and several times later. And you have already acknowledged it yourself a couple of times only to be "really surprised" every time it pops up again. We've moved from "complete certainty at actual infinity, a point in time which can't actually exist" (which is a pointless debate) a very long time ago, many pages earlier to "good chance after a finite yet very inconvenient length of time" (which is statistics). It's you who keeps insisting that IT CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN.Not that the chance of it happening is low in a certain fixed reasonable length of time, but that it can't happen at all no matter how much time you give it. Want me to quote some of the many places in which you said exactly that ? I don't even need to go back long for that.
It is possible in conception... but in actuality, well we would need evidence because it might not turn out the way we think it would. I guess you didn't catch that part?
Something being possible does not automatically mean that it must occur. I still stand by the assertion that rolling 10 billion billion billion heads over any length of time is unnatural. To date i have seen no physical evidence to the contrary.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:03:00 -
[227] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:we would need evidence First post on this page. Physical proof. Go verify.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Something being possible does not automatically mean that it must occur. And if something it POSSIBLE it obviously can't be impossible. Yet somehow you claim that something which you have admitted IS possible will NEVER happen. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:10:00 -
[228] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:we would need evidence First post on this page. Physical proof. Go verify.
I don't think that providing physical proof means what you think that it means
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Something being possible does not automatically mean that it must occur.
Akita T wrote:And if something it POSSIBLE it obviously can't be impossible. Yet somehow you claim that something which you have admitted IS possible will NEVER happen.
Seems counter intuitive I know, but yes that is what I am saying. The example that I gave involved a mountain of scrabble pieces and an explosive device. Will the pieces ever land and spell out Shakespeare? No. Is it possible that they could if the mound was big enough and you tried enough times? Sure, but it is not going to. That is the difference.
But I understand if I am thinking at a level that is above you. It's ok, you have your math and that will keep you warm at night.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:12:00 -
[229] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote: Something being possible does not automatically mean that it must occur.
[quote=Akita T]And if something it POSSIBLE it obviously can't be impossible. Yet somehow you claim that something which you have admitted IS possible will NEVER happen. Seems counter intuitive I know, but yes that is what I am saying. It's not counterintuitive, it's flat out wrong. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:15:00 -
[230] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Something being possible does not automatically mean that it must occur. And if something it POSSIBLE it obviously can't be impossible. Yet somehow you claim that something which you have admitted IS possible will NEVER happen. Seems counter intuitive I know, but yes that is what I am saying. It's not counterintuitive, it's flat out wrong. It implies your claimed randomness is NOT random.
So you are saying that I can set an explosive in a mountain of scrabble pieces and accidentally Hamlet?
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:19:00 -
[231] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:So you are saying that I can set an explosive in a mountain of scrabble pieces and accidentally Hamlet? Assuming various shapes and sizes of explosives, assuming sufficient scrabble pieces, and assuming the letters would not be destroyed in the process ? There's not enough time for that to be likely, but it is POSSIBLE. With such a tiny chance to be easily dismissed as PRACTICALLY impossible during a human lifetime. Heck, entire lifetime of the universe even would not even begin to make it even remotely likely. But if you could be doing it enough times (may universes or whatever the heck you want to use to get enough tries), yes, yes you could. Not certain, but starting from nearly impossible it can become quite likely. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:32:00 -
[232] - Quote
You just keep thinking that
The new theory of randomness hence forth, will be infinite monkeys setting infinite charges beneath infinite mounts of scrabble pieces and eventually creating Hamlet. That is just... special. LOL
Yes that's the word I am looking for "special"
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:34:00 -
[233] - Quote
So what exactly is stopping me from flipping 1 extra head (with 50% chance) after I have flipped N heads in a row, regardless of how large N might be ? Does the universe magically have a memory of how many heads I flipped so far and makes my next flip NOT have a 50% chance of landing heads ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:38:00 -
[234] - Quote
So what exactly is stopping me from flipping 1 extra head (with 50% chance) after I have flipped N heads in a row, regardless of how large N might be ? Does the universe magically have a memory of how many heads I flipped so far and makes my next flip NOT have a 50% chance of landing heads ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:00:00 -
[235] - Quote
Akita T wrote:So what exactly is stopping me from flipping 1 extra head (with 50% chance) after I have flipped N heads in a row, regardless of how large N might be ? Does the universe magically have a memory of how many heads I flipped so far and makes my next flip NOT have a 50% chance of landing heads ?
First of all... monkeys exploding their way to Shakespeare? ROFL! Don't be so quick to change the subject.
Secondly:
What is a fair coin? Is this another imaginary idea? Well, let us say that you can get one. Upon flipping it you have accidentally created a machine that will basically convert an incalculable amount of variables into either a heads or tails result. When it is flipped my hand will never be able to reproduce the exact height or force and further more the ground is not perfectly smooth. So the actual forces involved are far more complex then a simple 50:50 representation. That is a ultrasimplified principle designed to predict and outcome and it does so in great effect when the values are small.
The reality of a coin toss, i theory, is neither fair nor random. Each individual coin will have some tiny bias and supposedly the outcome is predetermined the moment that it leaves my finger. When it hits the ground, it is the shape of the floor and the bounce that it creates that sets it on a path that differs from my initial flip.
This gives the coin a new direction and the result will be independent of where it might of landed if the floor was perfectly smooth. The probability of a coin landing only heads or tails is 50:50 because it's shape is turning 360 degrees into a plane that must land on either side. This divides the multitude of variables that will yield either heads or tails directly in half. That creates the illusion of the 50:50 split.
The actual variables involved are far more numerous, perhaps so that they cannot be calculated. Theoretically these variables are forever changing and each one effects the coin. So the coin is being effected by forever changing forces that are acting upon it, making it fall "almost heads but not" and "almost tails but not" throughout the experiment. Since these forces 1. never repeat and 2. are always changing their effects on the coin are entirely unpredictable. But remember the coin acts like a machine that divides them up into a 50:50 representation.
So, the nature of the world beneath and around the coin is forever changing. It never repeats and it has a "simulated memory". It is not a real memory mind you, so don't get your panties in a ruffle just yet. It is only simulated. Think of the wind, it blows from a certain direction for a certain amount of time and then it stops. It blows harder and then softer, and then it blows from a different direction. These things take time.
This "time taken" creates the illusion of memory because the factors acting on the coin are now time dependent. In addition each time the coin hits the floor it may be changing the shape of the floor, or the balance of the coin, which further alters the variables involve and the change with each flip. So that too is time dependent. Time dependent variables = the illusion of memory.
The Result
The coin is not fair nor is it random. The universe does not have memory but it does have time dependent forces that can simulate memory and those forces directly alter the coin on an infinitesimal level. Those changes get translated into the coin which is a machine that coverts all of these variables into a 50:50 output and the end result is what you see.
When the values involved are small statistics as you know it predict the outcomes well, but when the values are much larger these tiny discrepancies can create unpredictable outcomes and that is why you need to prove your hypothesis when you say something like "you can roll ten billion heads in a row".
It is less likely to roll another heads because: (Blasphemy I know but meh)
This is also why it is less likely that you will flip another heads after you have flipped a number of them in a row. The external and time contingent forces acting on the coin are forever changing. So you are not just factoring in the pure random chance of the coin anymore you are now also taking into account the external and independent factors. So with each flip it becomes less and less likely that you will get another because of the external and time contingent forces that are forever changing.
The illusion of memory.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:04:00 -
[236] - Quote
Gotcha, so you say actual randomness can not possibly exist (which MIGHT be true), and that the universe actually does have a memory (less likely, but still borderline possible), and does suffer from a gambler's fallacy turned real (absurd). Further discussion with you is pointless. Good bye. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:06:00 -
[237] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Gotcha, so you say actual randomness can not possibly exist (which MIGHT be true), and that the universe actually does have a memory (less likely, but still borderline possible), and does suffer from a gambler's fallacy turned real (absurd). Further LOGICAL discussion with you is pointless. You have long since passed in the realm of crackpot metaphysics. Good bye.
Hey, I am still on monkeys exploding their way to hamlet. Imagine how I feel?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:13:00 -
[238] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Imagine how I feel? Almost certainly not like the kook you appear to be. No crackpot ever does. And cranks also usually have a better track record of convincing laymen they are right than you do. P.S. The conclusion being that you're either a troll or in serious need of education. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Imagine how I feel? Almost certainly not like the kook you appear to be. No crackpot ever does. And cranks also usually have a better track record of convincing laymen they are right than you do. P.S. The conclusion being that you're either a troll or in serious need of education.
I don't think I need to do much convincing if I am taking a stance opposite to monkeys exploding their way to Hamlet. Do you?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:21:00 -
[240] - Quote
Because the universe conspiring against a certain coin toss making it have a 0% probability to flip heads and 100% probability to flip tails is so much more believable. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |