MigL

Data centers and AI are big business and big profits for Billionaires and investors. They can afford to pay the high prices for power, and in so doing,, they drive up energy costs, or cause draughts, for the idiots who buy into this technology to have it think for them. We are our own worst enemies, and there are plenty of unscrupulous people willing to take advantage of, and get insanely rich off of, us stupid people.

Sorry. LHC is capable of 1.4x1013 eV.

You are right. The dice example would be more suitable as it is easy to agree on the outcome/event, whereas we seem to be at odds over the which outcome of the horse race we are assigning probabilities to. I think we 'beat these horses to death'.

Typical cosmic ray energies are between 106 eV, and 1020 eV, far beyond what CERN and the LHC can achieve, at 1.413 eV. But I see you recognize that. As for the Trinity test, I remember reading that E Fermi was able to calculate the yield of the blast by the distance scraps of paper were scattered by the shock wave. IOW, everything about the fission reaction was planned and understood. That doesn't mean unforeseen results can't happen. I believe that the Castle Bravo fusion test, in the Marshall Islands, was the one where they used the two different isotopes of Lithium, believing Ithium-7 to be inert, whereas it actually contributed to the fusion reaction generating a yield 2.5 times than expected, and scaring the crap out of everyone, being about 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Science, as we know it, is deeply rooted in causality. Unless you can establish a cause for an effect, you are just describing patterns. Mind you, sometimes those numerological patterns may turn out to hold true, but that is not science; it is, at best, guesswork, and at worst, bullsh*t.

I don't mind your disagreement, but your reasoning is flawed. Disregarding the 'unplaced' outcome for now, if one horse places 1st, there are only 5 horses that can place 2nd, and 4 that can place 3rd, and so on, leaving only one horse to place last. Your sample space, for all possible 'placed' outcomes, would be 6!. But there are only 6 possible outcomes for winning the race; who/what else could win, other than one of the 6 horses ?

Maybe a brief tutorial on vector analysis would help @tylers100 if he is lacking in that area.

That is correct. So if the question specifies the event "what is the probability of any one horse winning the race" then Of course you can ask "what is the probability of any event happening", which would also include a dead heat, all disqualified, and many more; but that is not what was asked. Just as in @joigus' original post, the paradox is in the wording of the question; not with the probabilities themselves.

The question I was attempting to clarify was If you have no prior information guiding you to probable outcomes, then you cannot assign probability to any event. The best you can do is that an event has to occur, and divide by the possible number of ways that event can occur. In effect, the probability of any one of the horses winning the race is 1/6 . What a priori information would you use to assign probabilities of the first event, never mind frequency distributions which can only be gleaned after many such events ?

Just wondering ... What is a 'one dimensional object' with 'three points and two lines'? Why are you deliberately trying to confuse yourself with this non-standard interpretation of gravity? What do you imagine is lacking from the standard treatment of gravity that can be obtained from a high-school level textbook, and which would tell you that gravity always 'acts' from the center of mass point, but geometry/distribution does play a role in the tidal effects.

Still not convinced ... There is no history of the 6 horses, so you have no reason to assign a probability other than 1/6 to each horse, since the expected ( guaranteed ) outcome is that one of the 6 must win. To do otherwise, you'd be making up information. If I am misunderstanding you, please dumb it down, as I can be rather 'thick' sometimes.

No, but you would think Iranians killed his father, and must prepare to die ... ( you gotta watch the movie )

Surely the frequentist ( never heard the term, but I suppose I am one ) would define the probability of an event E, p(E) = F/ N , where N is the total number of possible outcomes, and F is the one desired outcome, E. But I suppose this doesn't give a frequency distribution ...

In most cases 'random' simply means lack of information about the process that leads to the 'random' outcome. The example I often use is the set of numbers 1,5,9,2,6,5,3,5,8,9,7,9,3,2,3 which seem perfectly random numbers between 0 and 9, and when presented with those numbers, one assumes they cannot be generated from each other, or a mathematical process. Yet if you calculate Pi, and subtract 3.14, you are left with those 'random' numbers as the remaining 15 digits, so not random at all when new information is obtained. That is not to say that there are no truly random events, to which, of course, you can assign a numerical value.

And, if you mean the Roman Empire, it should be noted that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, under Habsberg rule, referred to themselves, until the beginning of the last century, as the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, since all the Germanic tribes that invaded/sacked Rome essentially took on Roman laws and systems of government, and became 'Romans'. It is not a coincidence that Germanic rulers are called 'Kaiser', the alteration of 'Caesar' ( emperor ). Also 'Czar', and even 'Tsar' in Russia, indicating the Roman Empire had influence in the European continent until 1918. By the same token, the American system of laws and government, essentially a modified British system, has been very successful and has been a model for other nations. At least until it was taken over by 'big money', and corrupted beyond recognition by D Trump. I fullt expect to see this modern day Nero ( or Caligula ) playing the fiddle while Washington DC burns.

Congratulations, and many more ...

Holographic Entropic Service/Force cosmology ? Have heard it mentioned; not very familiar with it. "Entropic cosmology (or HES - Holographic Entropic Service/Force Cosmology) models the universe's evolution not through dark energy, but by treating gravity as an entropic force arising from information stored on the cosmic horizon. In this framework, the acceleration of the universe is a result of the statistical tendency for the horizon's entropy to increase." From what I've read ( not much ), it has issues.

OK. But can we stop talking about spiders ? Always feel like something is crawling on me when discussing spiders. Although I am reminded of the Predator aliens, with their extended, horizontally opposed mandibles. ( the original movie may have indicated they were related to scorpions ) And one episode of Star Trek TNG suggested Lt. Barclay's ancestors were spider-like creatures, although he looked very human. ( Genesis S7 Ep19 )

Covered by 'economy of resources'. As for spiders, why evolve more legs when when 'jaws' or food grasping appendages can be re-purposed ? Again, 'economy of resources'; nature is resourceful, but frugal.

Is the paradox not inherent in the question ? Out of the four choices, one has to be correct so that would make it 25%. But two out of four choices are 25%, which means 50%. Is this one of those 'liar who claims to be lying' situations that fries android's brains in old Star Trek episodes ?

Maybe you're not trying to prove 'creation' or 'evolution', but I suggest things only make sense if you consider evolution, Aquatic animals are forced to go onto land, they have two options, slithering on the ground, or supporting themselves on appendages to stay off the ground. Four appendages is the most economical and stable method. Then evolution continues ... Land animals evolve larger capacity brains, and need to grasp things. Their brain is now capable of balance, so again economy of resources diversifies two appendages for grasping things. Evolution has always been about environmental forcings ( the need to do specific things ) in the most resource economic way possible. If something isn't needed, it isn't developed by evolution.

And please do so without the AI influence ...

Where ?!?! ( what were we talking about ? )

Don't have any laptops with magnetic drives anymore, but do have some external USB 1TB 2.5 in drives storing old 'stuff'. Could not get a crash of the external hard drive on an older i3 laptop with Win10.. Don't know if the OS needs to be on the drive, or if it's particular to WinXP, which I don't have any installations of anymore. All I found out is that I'm still tired of hearing 'Rhythm Nation', but still fond of Janet Jackson.

This is one time I would agree with Dimreepr. Every healthy eye ball has a blind spot; I have blind areas due to Glaucoma. A person with two functioning eyeballs uses the opposite eye to compensate for each eye's blind spot. Unfortunately, I only see with one eye, but on a bright day I do have a little vision in my left damaged eye, such that I would see doubled yellow lines down the middle of the street. Eventually my brain learned to ignore the signal coming from my left eye, and my right eye became dominant, so I no longer see doubled up street lines. In effect, the left eye's field of view became a brain blind spot. Can the brain adapt ( plasticity is the term, I believe ) to pick and choose what it can or can't see ?