<<You said "I think he has a point because you don't really try to be clear in what you write". I definitively pointed out this is a falsehood, based on my knowledge of my intentions.>>
I think I need to explain to this silly person where his mistake lies. I started my comment with "I think". This means that it is my subjective opinion, believe it or not. I think he has a point why? Because "I think he has a point because you don't really try to be clear in what you write" means that "I think he has a point because I think you don't try to be clear", etc. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand anything at all. Obviously I have stated that "I think" he has a point and that is immediately followed by "because" and the "because" refers to the fact that I think he doesn't try to be clear. That is the fact. The fact is that I THINK he doesn't try to be clear. My perception of that agrees with Sillver's. But I know he's a troll and I now know he isn't well.
In any case, he is only claiming he tries to be clear and frankly I no longer believe him. After this I don't believe anything he says or is going to say. He's condemned himself as an obvious troll. He's no more intelligent than I am and he's screwed up. He attacks people who criticise the way he tries to control others and when that's pointed out, he accuses THEM of trolling. He disgusts me somewhat, as a matter of fact.
End of.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Opti ? You wasted too much negative energy on the bot. It hasn’t changed it’s answers since sign-up. Probably hasn’t been updated in 10 years - it’s the same ole stuff. Now, you want to know about predictability and certainty? Read The World according to Elroch 🚀 None of which to be taken personal. People who know all the incorrect answers defy logic. The reasons to which perhaps only their hairdresser knows.
I'm afraid I think there's something very, very wrong. I would guess Asperger's/Autism spectrum.
What's wrong is you getting so personal. You're out of line here. You've made Elroch your nemesis, for some reason. Whatever it is, it's on you. Maybe you need to reflect on that. Just an observation.
Otherwise, I've enjoyed reading the discussion about this topic. I'm sure others have as well, even though we don't participate.
#2030
Trader Joe's should be sending you some any minute now.
THX !!...from me & cookie 
elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"
it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
please stop undermining his thread
elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"
it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
please stop undermining his thread
That is in no sense a definition. The mere fact that it is a QUESTION should give that away!
elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"
it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
please stop undermining his thread
That is in no sense a definition. The mere fact that it is a QUESTION should give that away!
No. Clearly from my eye this is where you are the one who has totally missed the point and direction of the topic. Because people do not agree does not mean they don’t understand. Briefly I thought troll but no one can be so genuinely illogical. You’ve defined the topic to suit your agendas. Nobody I’ve seen agrees. Opti was out of line. Seems he lost it over needless frustration. I learned long ago to take your responses in humor. A little effort and I can predict your response! Now there’s proof randomness doesn’t exist 😎
The question about a chess game is actually excellent and right to the point. The question leads directly to the issue. Philosophical questions. Science makes the observations and measurements for us. We make our assumptions and conclusions based on the best evidence. Your failure has always been in thinking your conclusion is the only possible correct one and give reason - it’s grounded In your version of science. (An outdated relic) and even if partially true would remain outside the scope here.
A pantomath is a person who wants to know and knows everything.
The scientific method requires you to send your prediction of one of my posts to someone else before I post it. Good luck!
elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"
it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
please stop undermining his thread
That is in no sense a definition. The mere fact that it is a QUESTION should give that away!
No. Clearly from my eye this is where you are the one who has totally missed the point and direction of the topic. Because people do not agree does not mean they don’t understand. Briefly I thought troll but no one can be so genuinely illogical. You’ve defined the topic to suit your agendas. Nobody I’ve seen agrees. Opti was out of line. Seems he lost it over needless frustration. I learned long ago to take your responses in humor. A little effort and I can predict your response! Now there’s proof randomness doesn’t exist 😎
The question about a chess game is actually excellent and right to the point. The question leads directly to the issue. Philosophical questions. Science makes the observations and measurements for us. We make our assumptions and conclusions based on the best evidence. Your failure has always been in thinking your conclusion is the only possible correct one and give reason - it’s grounded In your version of science. (An outdated relic) and even if partially true would remain outside the scope here.
I hope at least my example involving a bookie helped you understand how when you combine a large number of random quantities, the randomness of their combination can be proportionately less.
I hope you (and others also now understand that randomness has only one serious established meaning (uncertainty in the prediction of an event) as found in any reputable text on the subject. I hope you also understand that determinism means a complete lack of randomness and that the question of whether the real world could be deterministic has been answered convincingly in the negative, firstly by the observation that quantum mechanics implied there could never be an underlying deterministic explanation and secondly, by the verification of the violation of Bell's inequality by a series of increasingly convincing experiments starting in the 1970s and continuing up to the last decade.
Of course, you can choose not to know any of that. Is there a word for such a person?
Done ! Although I’ll assume I missed a comma. Hence, your post will remain random. 🤟
Large random quantities cancelling each other out is a known phenomenon with current thinking.
Whether or not they occur randomly is the topic. Observe the behavior and draw your own conclusions. The concept is abstract. Measurements can be made. Interpretation of the results lead to conclusions. The conclusions are made by people- not science. This is the gross error of your thinking.
We’ll be the master’s of the universe one day. But not until we understand and then learn to manage the quantum world. Obviously, impossible if events there are truly random.
whatever happened to mindwalk ? - lol !
i luvd him...wish hed join in
Perhaps this to explain-
You show up everyday and your job is to count quantities. The issue becomes tedious with seemingly random amounts, doing all this counting. A device is invented. It’s results are verified, sure enough it reports match exactly all our own.
Soon we rely on the device. See the world by it. Laziness sets in. Think all is solved. After time it’s forgotten where it all began.
#2030
Trader Joe's should be sending you some any minute now.
THX !!...from me & cookie
No prob, hope you had a good time.
'I miss burning the incense when sippin my wine. Cat's, plants, tree's and views were mine. Had the remembrance, so I made the rhyme.'
Banter between someone who always needlessly turns the discussion to one of physics and deliberately closes down discussion where he's genuinely being challenged gets boring and ridiculous when he's allowed to get away with it by others, so I've completely lost interest.
Let me bore you with a little about me. I started a Facebook account circa 2003 or 4 and got into debating. I was interested in varied subjects. At one time, unasked for, I was being called "the best debater in English on Facebook". Naturally, there were several hundred people who tried to "win" arguments with me. It was like being a fast gun in the West. Tedious.
In my one previous incarnation here on Chess.com, several years before this one, I met up with Elroch and in those days he was such an obvious troll that I spent an hour investigating him. I found out his name, his job and the name of the village near Cambridge he lived in. Just in case. It's as well to be aware of who some people are.
There are trolls and trolls and some of them are intelligent and subtle. Most people are no match for them at all. His thing is "control". That's all .... control and selling his self-image of the perfect intellect.
That is more explained that even I can do ^^^^^
I'm sure it is. He just explains it incorrectly. He's a complete and utter hypocrite.
Also, why didn't he attack Sillver because, after all, I was only supporting his perception? And yes, he is making attacks and he is a troll. The question is whether I'm right about the reasons for it and I believe I probably am.