@ Uke.. What exactly is winning anyway. : )
Another perception?
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Happiness!
Thx for the posting on eagle and fish face. I like that stuff.
yea, i wish i knew how to post the video, because as it fly the head keep turning... (usually with this sort of things the illusion just disappear)
on another note, because free will keeps coming up... genetics is also a big challenger to it. maybe even more challenging than physics, because its somewhat main stream?
I don’t know all the intricacies involved, but for now anyway I believe in free will.
On another note, remember that poster gracian.? Probably spelled it wrong. Anyway, he had some damn good posts earlier this morning. Now he’s gone, I know that Elroch would have been in heaven with that stuff. (Bummer)
Dec 10, 2019
0
#227
Uke8 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Uke8 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
One very old idea is that when you don't know what is true, you make as neutral assumptions as possible. So if you know that if a die can give you 6 results and you know nothing else, the best assumption is that all 6 possibilities are equally likely. However, when you move on to taking into account empirical data to revise your model of reality, this fails to be adequate.
why do you assume that all possibilities are equally likely?
If all you have is labels, then you have no reason to favour one of those labels over another. One way of putting it is that in this extreme case where you have no empirical information, the only distribution that respects the symmetry between labels - you know exactly the same about each of them - is the uniform one.
When you replace this by the selection of a prior, this prior can be viewed as a distribution of distributions. Any such prior should still respect the same symmetry, or equivalently, the initial distribution it implies should.
I'm not referring to a physical bias to the die which obey the law of physics. (or a bias to empirical data results from pseudorandom) instead, assume an absolute random... why do we take for granted an equal distribution? (large numbers included)
We don't. It's just that without additional information, you have no more reason to believe the die would be biased towards 1 than that it would be biased towards 6 (these just being interchangeable labels for the outcome of experiments), and so on. There is a symmetry to your uncertainty.
Switch to a coin for simplicity. Suppose you have no reason to believe it is more likely to be biased towards heads than tails (your belief is symmetric with respect to an exchange of the two labels). Then until you get some data, you think there is 50% chance of a head, regardless of how likely it is that the coin is biased (because opposite biases cancel out).
Your answer is unsatisfying because it based on empirical information resulted from pseudorandom while ignoring absolute random proposition. we already been thru pseudorandom and your explanation was suffice. now we're back to absolute random and the hypothetical question if it will distribute equally.
anyways, in the meantime i thought of a very simplistic answer to this question, and it simply come down to averaging.
for example, back to your 1,000 x 12M experiment. even if absolute random will have chaotic results like 500k vs 5m, once you average all the 1000 (thought experiments) you should eventually get an equal distribution. and if not... just do more of it.
more precisely... i have no way to be certain if absolute random will propagate into equal proportions in the same rate as pseudo does. however, eventually it should average to equal proportions. i think : )
There is a confusion of concepts here. I was discussing Bayesian probabilities which are quantifications of belief. These probabilities should respect symmetries in what you know. You appear to be referring to frequentist probabilities associated with the long run statistics of a repeatable trial. It is of course true that these might be anything. For example if someone says "here is a 6-faced die", it might be fair or it might be biased. The probability of each number is something you don't know. But you have no reason to expect one number to be more likely than another. If so, your belief state is to allocate a probability of 1/6 to each face (a set of Bayesian probabilities).
Is it possible to influence the dice by concentrating? I mean, with the mind? I used to play a game called Risk! and in that game, two dice are thrown against three dice with draws counting for the two dice side (defending side). This was around 1974. There were some who thought they could influence the fall of the dice by mental power.
Incidentally ... grammatical note .... one die, two or more dice.
'because no one could be blamed for wrong doings. it would make all our actions inevitable?'
Dec 10, 2019
0
#230
Optimissed wrote:
Is it possible to influence the dice by concentrating? I mean, with the mind? I used to play a game called Risk! and in that game, two dice are thrown against three dice with draws counting for the two dice side (defending side). This was around 1974. There were some who thought they could influence the fall of the dice by mental power.
Incidentally ... grammatical note .... one die, two or more dice.
It is possible to imagine you can influence dice with your mind. It is possible to convince yourself that you can do so.
But I have no reason to believe it is possible to do so (and good reason to think not).
@ Uke.. Earlier on it was astronomy that I brought up. I realize you prefer the earthen ware so to speak. They just put together several random stars and give them a name. Kind of strange how they might think that the image below looks like some guy getting ready for archery.
more precisely... i have no way to be certain if absolute random will propagate into equal proportions in the same rate as pseudo does. however, eventually it should average to equal proportions. i think : )
interesting thought. unfortunately we'll never know 
If you throw a dice 12m times it is very unlikely to fall on each number 2 m times; no one can tell what the outcome will be; that is why it is random. Random means that each individual throw is independent of all others. Chess and dice is NOT a good comparison. Skill is and experience are involved in chess outcomes and are not random
Chess and dice is NOT a good comparison
why would you make that comparison?
I don’t know all the intricacies involved, but for now anyway I believe in free will.
its very good that you do because regardless to the big picture this is a major part of our human experience.
by the way... are you Sagittarius, or did you pick that one randomly?
Sillver1 wrote:
Chess and dice is NOT a good comparison
why would you make that comparison?
I did not make it; I was referring to the OP where chess and dice were mentioned as possible examples of randomness; read the OP then my post might make sense
and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?
This one? i believe it was related to determinism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Is it possible to influence the dice by concentrating? I mean, with the mind? I used to play a game called Risk! and in that game, two dice are thrown against three dice with draws counting for the two dice side (defending side). This was around 1974. There were some who thought they could influence the fall of the dice by mental power.
Incidentally ... grammatical note .... one die, two or more dice.
It is possible to imagine you can influence dice with your mind. It is possible to convince yourself that you can do so.
But I have no reason to believe it is possible to do so (and good reason to think not).>>
It seems unlikely but I once saw someone perform a feat that would seem amazing. Throwing three dice at a time, they said they were going to concentrate on throwing sixes. I watched as over about fifteen minutes the numbers on the dice gradually rose. I think they were throwing the dice roughly three to five times per minute. It was threes, then fours and threes, then fives and fours and the odd six, and finally either five or six triple sixes in a row. There were about three other witnesses. Do you know what the odds against that is?
Anyway, that hardly seems an incidence of "imagining they were doing it"!
Mass hallucination maybe, of the kind when a number of people all see a flying saucer at the same time?
Sillver1 wrote:
I don’t know all the intricacies involved, but for now anyway I believe in free will.
its very good that you do because regardless to the big picture this is a major part of our human experience.
by the way... are you Sagittarius, or did you pick that one randomly?
lol.. Yeah I’m a Sag. Not that I believe in that **** There does seem to be something to it though. For instance my mother is a ‘Gemini’ and at times I would swear that she has a split personality. Coincidence? No, it’s not my game. I just posted those stars randomly because I thought they looked sexy.
lol.. yeah anyway, life on the road. Tonight it’s popcorn, tomatoes & okra for dinner, while I listen to Pink Floyd’s ‘Terminal Frost’. Ohh I’m so glad I’m glad I’m glad.
So.. that determinism **** sounds like a cop out to me, I’m not buying it. When you take responsibility for your own actions, you actually end up liking yourself more. That’s a good thing, because then the laws of attraction tend to favor you more, if that makes sense. There’s other benefits that should be self evident.
One very old idea is that when you don't know what is true, you make as neutral assumptions as possible. So if you know that if a die can give you 6 results and you know nothing else, the best assumption is that all 6 possibilities are equally likely. However, when you move on to taking into account empirical data to revise your model of reality, this fails to be adequate.
why do you assume that all possibilities are equally likely?
If all you have is labels, then you have no reason to favour one of those labels over another. One way of putting it is that in this extreme case where you have no empirical information, the only distribution that respects the symmetry between labels - you know exactly the same about each of them - is the uniform one.
When you replace this by the selection of a prior, this prior can be viewed as a distribution of distributions. Any such prior should still respect the same symmetry, or equivalently, the initial distribution it implies should.
I'm not referring to a physical bias to the die which obey the law of physics. (or a bias to empirical data results from pseudorandom) instead, assume an absolute random... why do we take for granted an equal distribution? (large numbers included)
We don't. It's just that without additional information, you have no more reason to believe the die would be biased towards 1 than that it would be biased towards 6 (these just being interchangeable labels for the outcome of experiments), and so on. There is a symmetry to your uncertainty.
Switch to a coin for simplicity. Suppose you have no reason to believe it is more likely to be biased towards heads than tails (your belief is symmetric with respect to an exchange of the two labels). Then until you get some data, you think there is 50% chance of a head, regardless of how likely it is that the coin is biased (because opposite biases cancel out).
Your answer is unsatisfying because it based on empirical information resulted from pseudorandom while ignoring absolute random proposition. we already been thru pseudorandom and your explanation was suffice. now we're back to absolute random and the hypothetical question if it will distribute equally.
anyways, in the meantime i thought of a very simplistic answer to this question, and it simply come down to averaging.
for example, back to your 1,000 x 12M experiment. even if absolute random will have chaotic results like 500k vs 5m, once you average all the 1000 (thought experiments) you should eventually get an equal distribution. and if not... just do more of it.
more precisely... i have no way to be certain if absolute random will propagate into equal proportions in the same rate as pseudo does. however, eventually it should average to equal proportions. i think : )