Lord Antares

I mean if we were to want to have an outcome of a coin toss on its edge every time in say 100 milion tosses then it seems to me we'd have to start worrying about controlling the conditions of this experiment on the particle level and that would get us into the wave probability function side of things.

Well, ''with probability 1'' means an infinite number of times, not just 100 million. My knowledge of QM is feeble, but as far as I've heard, there's a given technical probability that if you were to bounce a ball into a wall, it could teleport to the other side of it. So if done an infinite number of times, it would go through the wall an infinite number of times.

If this is true (again, I can't tell myself), then you would be correct. The coin would eventually go through the table and not land on its edge.

But still, it is a question whether this is truly random. In theory, it could be possible to calculate (for a perfect machine) whether an object would go through a wall by the motion and velocity of the micro-particles causing this. So then again, it might lead to it being controlled and thus, a perfect coin flipping machine being built which would be able to land coins on their edges with a probability of 1.

 

 

Im no expert on QM as well but AFAIK you either know the position or the velocity of a particle for certain, never both. So essentially nothing has the probability of 1 on the micro scale, everything is determined by the wave probability function.

So it could very well be that we simply don't know this and are assigning it a wave-probability function because probability, the whole premise of it, is based on our ability to calculate these things. It would not be unreasonable to assume that because everything else concerning probability works that way; everything. Of course, it could be that I'm wrong.

wouldn't QM's probabilistic fussyness play a role here?

Well, OK, you got me there. I forgot to include QM. Without it, there is not doubt it is possible.

However, the answer is still not certain. It is a question whether randomness in QM is truly random or not. For example, I have a wooden box with two holes in it, one on the top and one on the side and I place 100 pieces of paper in it, numbered from 1 to 100 and I shake the box and scramble the pieces of paper. I have two people next to the box. One is looking through the hole on the side and one is drawing numbers from the top hole. The chances for the person on top for drawing any particular number are 1 in 100, whereas the chances for the person looking from the side are 1 in 1, because he can see which number is being picked.

The same goes for coins. For humans, any coin flip has a 50% chance of landing on either side, simply and only because our brains are not sophisticated enough to calculate and know the force and angle with which the coin is being flipped. If we place our hypothetical machine, it will immediately know the force of the flipping, the angle, velocity, spin etc. of the coin and will be able to predict the outcome with the probability of 1.

So randomness is simply a result of human ignorance and this is true for everything we know so far. I don't know why people assume that QM is different. Why do they not assume that we simply cannot predict the pattern with which quantom randomness is occuring, rather than it being truly random? Seeing it this way would comply with all the observations on probability we have thus far. These are just my thoughts on the qustion, I am far from an expert on QM.

My point in all this being, if QM has a pattern to its randomness like everything else does, it would mean that, technically, entropy of everything could be predicted.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

About the Hawking problem, the answer is no if we just knew their still position at a certain point in time. But if we know the exact velocity, the answer should be yes. I don't mean that we humans could calculate it, I mean an objective perfect machine should be able to do it, even if entropy is a part of it.

For example, if I have a box with bouncy balls in it, and I shake it forever in the same exact repeating pattern, a hypothetical perfect machine will be able to calculate the position of the marbles at any given point in the future. It justs adds in the velocity of the marble, the angle of deflection with the walls of the box and other marbles, then the angle of deflection once it hits again and it just keeps going forever. To say that entropy would make it impossible to calculate this would be to imply that marbles violate the laws of physics and move in unpredictable ways, which is impossible. Of course, if we're talking about a human calculating all of this, it would certainly be too advanced for us and entropy would make it ''unpredictable'' for sure. It depends if we're talking from a technical or practical perspective.

A coin would be much simpler because it's a single object which should always repeat the same pattern, given that the machine is constructed correctly. Saying that it would be impossible (from a technical perspective) to make a coin always land on an edge would be to say that Newton's third law is incorrect.

To be fair, I don't see why anyone would spend money on such a machine. We know, by the laws of physics, that this is possible and that hypothetically it is possible to make a machine which will land a coin on its edge with a probability of 1. I don't see why anyone would spend millions on creating it. It just wouldn't prove anything and would be largely useless.

It would be like creating a machine which would fire a chair a kilometer in the distance on a precise target with error margins of an inch. It certainly is possible from a technical perspective, but why bother with that?

This sounds like homework. We're not supposed to just give answers for homework, we're supposed to help you through it. So, if this is homework, what are your thoughts on it? Do you see a link between the numbers?

 

Let me help you out, and explain some elementary points of debate and discourse. NOWHERE did I say "you shouldn't accept argument from authority."

The point IS that YOU presume arguments from authorities are infallible. That clearly does not follow. YOUR SIDE claims that the 97% could not POSSIBLY be wrong.

I see that your reading comprehension is completely lacking. Not only did you not understand what I said, I was saying the exact opposite of that. I was saying that argument from authority is invalid, yet you used it. You were saying ''it doesn't matter that 97% agree on climate change, they can be wrong'' and then you use the argument from authority that a Nobel Lereuate claims climate change is false and that I cannot disprove him because I'm dumber than him. This is contradictory, logically inconsistent and it just makes no sense.

 

As to my argument being "double invalid," the "heaps of scientists" you cite are afraid of being blacklisted by their colleagues, as you people are so anxious to do to me here.

Ah, yes. This seems to be a common theme among conspiracy theoretists and crackpots like you. Make something up and regard it as true for the rest of your life without evidence. Yes, the NASA is trying to hoax everyone (for some reason). Bush did 9/11, aliens built the pyramids, the world is controlled by the illuminati etc etc. I bet you believe in all of these.

Since you seem to be unaware, science does not accepts things which are unproven and just wild guesses.

This is especially applicable to you since you seem to be a devout Christian. Preaching christianity and teaching science is a contradiction. You basically don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And your attempt at disproving evolution is laughable. Evolution is one of the most well tested and intensively proven theories of all time, yet you come in with some feeble triviality which you would easily disprove if you had any knowledge in science whatsoever.

I communicated at length with Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov to name but a few. So don't try impressing me with your PHD "bulshit" (sic).

Pestering them via eMail or Facebook until they block you doesn't count as communication.

I've read some of your posts. Your threads are not getting closed because the mods are intolerant. It's because they are complete drivel. I mean, you came in tried to disprove global warming by pointing out that global changes in temperature are smaller than the changes between seasons. You think no one has noticed this in the years of researching global warming. I mean, you must be a complete idiot.

And then you also attempt to disprove evolution and preach Christianity as fact. You have no idea what you are talking about and none of what you say is scientific in the slightest. I know you think you're some sort of genius, when in reality, you're an average moron who read something on the New World Order or some other crackpot site and you think you're going to ''save christianity'' and ''disprove science''. I have not read a single intelligent thing by you. Perhaps you should learn some science.

You read wrong.

 

Obviously you are so much smarter than Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to listen to his speech.

You already know it all.

This is your second strike because:

1) You already mentioned how you shouldn't accept argument from authority so the 97% (or whatever) of scientists who agree on climate change means nothing and then you go on to mention that the argument is correct because a Nobel Laureate is saying so. Your argument is invalid.

2) If you really want to push argument from authority, many more scientists are supporting the climate change notion than disproving it, including Nobel prize winners. So, in your own words: ''Obviously you are so much smarter than heaps of scientists who are suggesting climate change. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to look up the evidence''.

So your argument is double invalid.

 

Here Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever smashes the global warming hoax, pointing out that miniscule increases in temperature or sea level are trivial compared with seasonal changes of 50 to 100 degrees F, and tidal changes from 7 to 45 feet.

 

This is an unbelievably stupid comment.

Incidentally I have heard ** it is unwise to attempt to smother a sneeze as air speeds in the nasal passage can be up around the speed of sound (ie very high and likely to cause internal damage)

Apparently, if you close your nose with your hands and keep the mouth shut, it could pierce your eardrums and even pop your eyes out. I've read that somewhere but I have no evidence, so don't take my word for it.

Another funfact: I can induce a sneeze any time by will if I press my tongue against a particular point. It's the straight up point of the mouth, where the ''hard part'' of the roof ends and the ''soft part'' begins, if that makes sense.

I did read it and you're repeating the same thing over again. You seem to be confused about it so I tried to give the simplest and most elaborate explanation of why you cannot add percentages like that. I was quite satisfied with the example and I thought you would acknowledge it for sure.

Studiot put some more effort into the explanation and went into more detail. You should be thankful, instead of being so dissmisive that you ignored his post. There are people who actually know mathematics well on this forum and you should at least put some effort into understanding what they wrote.

Best television series, ever. IMHO.

Umm, sorry, that would be Breaking Bad.

Yeah, I've been watching since the series was brand new. I also have all the books, but I haven't read them.

I have a feeling they will screw up the new season. Called it.

What? Since when do Europeans not refrigerate eggs? I've never seen an egg not being refrigerated. I cannot speak for all European countries, though.

Seeing how you got deserved criticism for your ridiculous idea and the certainly false notion that your room shrunk, I will comment on this:

P.S You can continue the ridicule about my theory "Life(Fossilised flesh) to the core" and include this additional earthquake wobbles and meteorites falling to explain layers but still you can't change the fact of coal below rock and a lots of rock looking exactly like flesh including some with complete colour, coincidence? I think not.

It is absolutely shameful that you would make claims such as these. It is the incredibly simple notion of the randomness of variety. Some clouds look like faces and flesh? Does that I can make a theory that they are some kind of fossils of pre-historic birds? Because that's exactly what you're doing. There is a VAST amount of rock, coal and other ''earthly'' materials. It is only natural that some would resemble something you recognize. In fact, it would be nearly impossible, by pure randomness, that none would look exactly like faces or animals.

It is shameful that you would go on to counter something as elaborate as science with something as foolish as your post.

Science has years and years of research and evidence built upon it, discovered by the most advanced minds. You are countering that with ''look this rock looks like an animal so it must be an animal''. It's rude, to be honest.

Forgive me for going off topic, mods, but this thread wasn't going anywhere anyway.

I learned that small animals perceive time at a greater resolution than humans. A fly can perceive up to 7 times more audio and visual information per second than a human. It would seem that small animals live shorter but faster lives, a dogs life of 15 years while experiencing time at a higher resolution might be just as "long" as a larger animals life living longer but at a lower time resolution. Fascinating...I wonder if Einstein had these kinds of thoughts while coming up with relativity.

 

https://curiosity.com/topics/small-animals-perceive-the-world-in-slow-motion-curiosity/

I came to this conclusion and was going to make a thread on it months ago but I forgot about it. I guess they beat me to it then.

What are you on about, mate?

There is so much nonsense here and wild guessing that I don't even know what to ask. Maybe I could ask you for evidence?

Lava could even be something like burning oil and prehistoric life. This could be some explanation. Then theres the question of time left.

This is brilliant. I just saw a cloud that looks like a dragon. Therefore, my theory is that clouds are leftovers of ancient dragons that roamed the earth. This is exactly how science is done. Not to mention that we know what lava is.

All in all, none of this makes any sense. I suggest education in biology.

One of my daughters runs her entire life by PayPal and other electronic trading sites . Private life and Business life .

I need to get hold of her to warn her . ,

 

Mike

Sensei is right. You don't have to warn her of anything other than not clicking on spam e-mails.

This has nothing to do with paypal. It does not mean that PayPal is unsafe (and it really isn't unsafe). It's simply a site pretending to be PayPal. It's like if I dressed as a police officer and scammed someone out of some money. It does not mean that the police are corrupted, since I wasn't the police in the first place, right?

I fell for something like this a few years back when I was playing Dota 2. Basically, what you need to know that there are some cosmetic items in the game which can be traded for other items with players on a place called Steam Community, which is a part of the massively popular website ''Steam'' (basically of comparable repute as PayPal).

I was going to trade some items with a person who sent me a link to his Steam Community profile. Only, it wasn't really a steam community page, it was a similar domain made to look EXACTLY like the steam community page. Basically, it had something like ''steamconmunity'' in the address bar, instead of ''steamcommunity''. If you don't spot a detail like that, you might get fooled into thinking it is the legitimate page.

So when I typed my username and password in the corresponding places, I wasn't actually logging in anywhere, I was sending that information to the person who made the fake page. Thus, he logged in with my account and transferred all of my items to his account.

Similarly, clicking on that ''paypal'' mail would, I assume, lead you to a site login which looks exactly like the one on the PayPal page and upon typing your information, it would be sent to the person who sent you the mail, instead of logging in anywhere.

That's what phishing is. It has nothing to do with the level of safety of either PayPal or Steam or any other site. It's a site made to look like other sites.

 

I am not sure this is true. For example, your list of number (indices) must retain the order of the original list of words. And the receiver must understand the grammar of the language (and probably a lot of other context) in order to extract meaning from from the list of numbers. In other words, the receiver must fully understand the structure of the language in order to make use of your system.

Exactly this. This is what I'm talking about. It proposes nothing of new value, to my knowledge.

/cut

You still haven't replied to me asking for examples of this. It would help your case (or, it is actually neccessary to make your case). Give a working example of when and how this would be more useful than using conventional language.

 

So "dog" would have different index numbers for when it was a species of canid, when it referred to the adult male of that species, when it referred to a poor quality of merchandise, when it meant an unattractive person, when it was used as a verb meaning to follow, and all the other possible meanings.

This is true for the English language specifically. For example, when you say a noun in Croatian, you can infer the gender, the context, whether the noun is the subject or the object, what context it is being talked about in and you can sometimes even infer what the rest of the sentence will say about the noun. So, again, nothing new is being proposed.

At that time, yes, I'd say that the chances were zero percent that ayone would have picked any well ordered sequence of numbers vs a more chaotic sequence which was due to the misperception of what people understood about random patterns back then.

Claiming that zero percent of people used sequental combinations of numbers is a bit preposterous. How can you be sure of that?

Of course, I would agree with you that more people use that now than in those days, but that doesn't say much and doesn't quanfify the statistic.

which was due to the misperception of what people understood about random patterns back then.

I struggle to believe that no one understood this at that point. There are people who don't understand this today, but they don't represent all of the lottery players. This is something that is entirely logical and doesn't need to be taught. One could understand it without having been taught probability theory.

Again, I'm not claiming that a significant portion of people played sequential numbers (specifically 1-6 since you brought it up), I'm saying that it isn't clear to me that this sequence was picked less than any other isolated ''random'' sequence, or most of them for that matter.

@ Doctor Dick - I've tried to give you a chance and follow what you are failing to convey to us (which is ironic, since you're suggesting an improvement to the clarity of language), but I cannot shake the thought that you are, in essence, trying to introduce another language. In order to learn the symbols you are trying to push, you would need to understand the meaning behind them, which is exactly how language works. You have not shown one single benefit of ''your way''. Give a working and concise example. The onus is on you to prove your point, not on us to ''try to undestand it with no explanation.''

 

I would comment that the fact that thought in any known language representation may be transformed into specific points on a computer screen (or in a printed book for that matter) seems to pretty well defend my assertion

I should have clarified that I don't believe in physical manifestations of infinity such as the type given in the OP.

I never gave my belief on the physical manifestation of inifinity. Probability is very interesting to me. I am interested the most in its technical aspects; its applicability may or may not interest me, depending on the situation. Obviously, the OP was not a real-life situation. It was a curiosity to me to see how mathematics handles infinity in probablity. You can learn from it regardless of the fact that it may not ever be applicable.

And how do you know that? The two friends who played the lottery told you so?

Also, I will repeat: of course the amount of people who play random moves is far greater than the amount of people who play sequential moves, but you need to compare a certain ''random'' sequence to your 1-6, not all random sequences together. Pick any random sequence for the lottery. Do it two times more. Are you sure these exact combinations were less frequently picked than your 1-6 sequence?

If nobody ever thought of that strategy being a valid strategy, then no one would pick such a series of numbers when they thought it was guaranteed to fail.

 

...

The real question is if the idea was origional or not.

Surely, that's not the only factor in this equation. Understanding that any combination of numbers has the same odds of being drafted as any other combination is enough to disprove your point.

People might have picked the numbers 1-6 not because they thought no one else would, but simply because they were lazy to do anything else, since the odds are always the same.

So they didn't even have to think about sharing the prize to pick the ''obvious'' sequential combinations. Your premise is valid, but not for the numbers 1-6. It's too obvious for that. Perhaps a less obvious combination which would neither be picked when choosing random numbers, nor sequential numbers. Perhaps something like 7,8,9,10,11,12 sounds better than 1-6.