"if it ain't one thing, it's another
When you need someone to pull you out the bubble.." 
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).
wut are the chances that u'll reach parity at any time during the 12MM rolls ? math theory should be able to make s/t up.
L148...why dont u try to roll it like 600 times and see wut happens ? or better, for all u math adherents ?...before u produce a probability # ? why dont YOU do a 600X's roll and report back to us ? might do u some good. ::/
Sillver1 wrote:
"if it ain't one thing, it's another
When you need someone to pull you out the bubble.."
thx Hi Ho !...i absolutely luv the audience singing along ! they were sooo into it. damm wish i wuz there.
May 29, 2020
0
#2085
Sillver1 wrote:
"we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value."
nothing like a bird's view ; )
Gotta keep it real or live trying. Just had a funny thought.. What if you didn't know where your affectionate nickname came from?
May 29, 2020
0
#2086
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).
wut are the chances that u'll reach parity at any time during the 12MM rolls ? math theory should be able to make s/t up.
Simple: 100%. (This is a sort of random walk where there is a theorem that it returns to "parity" an infinite number of times, with probability 1. There is nothing "made up" about this, you can bet your house on it, as long as you have enough patience).
L148...why dont u try to roll it like 600 times and see wut happens ? or better, for all u math adherents ?...before u produce a probability # ? why dont YOU do a 600X's roll and report back to us ? might do u some good. ::/
I have often done simulations throwing millions or billions of dice (or at least comparable random samples). However, calculated probabilities like the rough one I stated are general results that provide information about what will happen when you do this over and over again. An individual run might be worth doing but not anything close to be as informative.
The key result I used was that the variance of a sum of N identically distributed random variables is N times the variance of one of them.
The mean of the number of 5's in a roll of 1 die is of course 1/6
The variance of the number of 5's in a roll of 1 die is:
(1/6) * (1 - 1/6)**2 + (5/6) * (0 - 1/6) ** 2 = 0.139
This means the variance of the number of 5's in 12,000,000 die rolls is:
12,000,000 * 0.139
This means the standard deviation is the square root of this, which is about 1291.
The distribution of the number of 5's is very close to normal (by a well-known theorem), so 95% of the time the result is within 1291 of the average.
So my statement was rather rough - it has 1000 instead of 1291, which is really not good enough!
just learned s/t new...
The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.
so from this def, doesnt this make scientific truth subjective as it depends on experience (empiricals) ?...and where do we cross the line into fact ?
May 29, 2020
0
#2088
While science is the most reliable way to obtain information about the way the real world behaves, a philosopher of science can legitimately point out that no scientific result is ever 100% certain. But they can be very close.
May 29, 2020
0
#2089
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
outta all the threads ive ever been on ?...this is definitely one a them.
Really like that comment!
ok. a fact is that there is this website. but thats not scientific, right ?
ok. heres another. 5 is a number. that seems like a fact, right ? but 5 is aparta math. its not aparta science.
Elroch wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
outta all the threads ive ever been on ?...this is definitely one a them.
Really like that comment!
it wuzza space odyssey
May 29, 2020
0
#2092
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
Determination has absolutely nothing to do about randomness.
Determinism (note the word) is the exact opposite of randomness.
Suppose some event is going to happen and the result could be 0 or 1. If there is no way of knowing which it will be, the event is random. If the result is certain to be 0, the event is deterministic.
enough with the obfuscation
I can be blamed for failing to make the point clear to you, but I cannot be (legitimately) blamed for not trying to be clear! To be honest, I still can't see why that is not clear to you.
Let's make it a concrete example. The event is whether a photon will pass through a vertically polarised filter (call it "filter 2"). Assume all filters work perfectly for simplicity (real ones are not quite perfect).
In experiment 1, the photon has already passed through a vertically polarising filter, so we know it is vertically polarised. We can infer it will pass through filter 2, so the result is deterministic.
In experiment 2, the photon has already passed through a filter at 45 degrees to the one of interest. Thus it has 50% chance of passing through filter 2. So the result is random.
May 29, 2020
0
#2093
Abhinav0121 wrote:
Out of all the threads on chess.com that I don't understand, this one is my absolute favourite. I always come in with curiosity, and leave with a tad bit knowledge of physics. I really can't decipher what is being said all the time, but I try my best.
Can you please recommend a Youtube channel or any other site that might help me understand what you guys are sayin' ... Just a little something to get me started.
I admire your desire to understand and your honesty.
It really depends on what your background is. Have you studied probability theory, the only consistent way to quantify randomness? If so that is useful. If not it would be worth finding an introductory material. (I am guessing you probably have done some). The other most relevant thing is quantum theory, because it is the best example of where you find true randomness in the real world. While the subject itself is very technical, the key result which permeates the subject is that often there are observations you can make of a system where the result of the observation is fundamentally random and cannot be predicted for certain (a lot of the subject relates to working out the probabilities of specific results when you make specific observations).
A great site for introductory material on a lot of subjects (including probability theory, quantum physics, entropy and randomness in different contexts) is Khan Academy. If it suits you, I suggest you search the site for different relevant phrases and wander around at your leisure. As well as searching without signing up, you can sign up for free which will give some advantages.
so coming off #2020, clearly u can see (lol !) that its way easier2callout a scientific truth. scientific fact ?...not so easy.
Elroch: "I can be blamed for failing to make the point clear to you, but I cannot be (legitimately) blamed for not trying to be clear! To be honest, I still can't see why that is not clear to you."
it is crystal clear to me. (since few days ago)
thats why i can now confidently say that all your arguments here about TR amount to obfuscation. lol. seriously.
but if you really cant see your blunder, just ask. i'll show it to you. but probably not today
I think he has a point because you don't really try to be clear in what you write. Compare it with how I write. I try to keep it simple because I know you sometimes struggle to understand abstract points such as implied priorities. Well, I struggle to understand cosmological terms I've never heard of and which were probably invented just to try to keep me in the dark, to prevent criticism before it arises! 
May 29, 2020
0
#2097
Lola tells us what happens in the real world most likely to be quite different than abstract mathematics.
Whatever gave her that idea? Our resident expert has quantified randomness. Explained the quantum aspect, how everything is truly random in nature. It’s all tied in with the BB which coincidently also happened by chance. The evidence is conclusive. It’s all there in the equations. Too complex for us but no worries.
May 29, 2020
0
#2099
We’re told the quantum world appears to be entirely random. If this were so - how is it we see only order before our eyes? What is the nature of the process whereby everything at the smallest is random but is observed to be ordered?
Or could it be that what we have thus far observed of the quantum world is defying proper explanation?
"we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value."
nothing like a bird's view ; )