"lol.. Yeah I’m a Sag. Not that I believe in that ****
sure you do. its written all over you buddy. lol. ...not to extreem, like rejecting a date just because she's on a conflicting sign, but it will make you happy if she is. wait. am i still talking about you? lol
what is the law of attraction? i'll tune in...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh_pAII16pw
True randomness does not exist. It is not really a concept worth delving into but if you like then we can discuss the logical implications further. It isn't just against the laws of physics, but the very nature of reality itself at the metaphysical level of analysis.
go ahead, we'd love to hear more opinions, especially if you offer a fresh outlook and it seem that you may. just chill and grab a cold one at post #8 (that's if you're over 21 ; )
True randomness does not exist. It is not really a concept worth delving into but if you like then we can discuss the logical implications further. It isn't just against the laws of physics, but the very nature of reality itself at the metaphysical level of analysis.
That is a belief, which is based on an interpretation of ideas about how things work. As such, it's an opinion, which some people agree with and some don't. But I don't think you can say that true randomness is "against the against the laws of physics", let alone "against the very nature of reality itself at the metaphysical level of analysis" I mean, it depends who's doing the analysing. One random person and they think one thing, pick another and it seems different.
I would maybe be interested in what the logical implications of randomness seem to be.
Your opinion is based on a concept of randomness that is imprecise.
Randomness is about incompleteness of information. Experiments on quantum mechanics show that some of this randomness (relating to the results of well-defined experiments) applies to the entire part of the Universe that is not in the causal future of the observations that measure the quantities in question.
whats up with posts keep disappearing and reappearing?
Randomness is about incompleteness of information.
no its not. R is about R. its u that sees it as I of I. which has mislead u to believe that all parts of it exist (blame it on ur black-n-white outlook).
I see, the good old self referential definition. There is a good reason why they are not found in dictionaries.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....like urziz any better guess.
Definitions are not static, they change depending on the context
@ Silver.. KingAxelson’s random fact #321
I have not read my daily horoscope since the last century.
Many thanks for allowing me to make the ‘laws of attraction’ personal. However, my guy doesn’t seem to have a YouTube on it. (John Alanis) Plenty of info though for a quick fix. (google search) We can revisit this later. : )
As I look at the full moon at one am, I see the stars as well. This for me is the best time to play the piano. As I write my opera, with out ever looking at the keys.
I awoke from my revere to this. Totally random, but that's what happened..
me neither but its probably because everything is electronic now days, and i dont get to read papers anymore. the horoscopes used to be on all of them. its fun and always so positive.
got to go... enjoy the weekend ya'll 
Definitions are not static, they change depending on the context
Sort of true of English, where words have multiple meanings and you need to work out which one is relevant.
Not really true of mathematics where definitions are precise and unique and abbreviation of a term is only used for convenience when there is no risk of confusion. I have seen people say that probability theory (a well-defined branch of mathematics) does not apply to the real world, but those who successfully do so every day can only shrug and continue to do so.
There are various explanations that have been developed to elucidate Benford's law, albeit it is somewhat more ready to prove it mathematically. Moreover, it plays prevalence in Planck's study of thermodynamics, in spite of the subtlety. The following links could be invaluable and furthermore, one should note that Zipf's law asserts that the frequency of a word is inversely proportional to its rank in the frequency table. In a simplistic mathematical form (I place simplistic so as to stress the beauty of probability theory even when it's not enmeshed with mathematical jargon), the probability of 'finding' the nth most common word is given by the approximation: P(n) = 0.1/n.
thanks for bringing up the Zipfs law. never heard of it and its even more surprising than the bredford one. even more bizzare is that there's no decisive logical explanation to it. kind of things that make me think determinism : )
zipfs law...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE
back to the benfords.. i asked if you know the reasoning because the first thing that came to mind was that its simply a result of the order we count. in other words, we start at 1 and go upwards.. so the use of 1's is simply more likely to add up(especially after chopping the other digits). guess this could be tested with a set that start at say 9999 and go downwards. however, im clueless if this even make sense
@ 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.
up until looking at your Sagittarius image i thought that its the same constellation as Orion. maybe because both are archers but that should tell you how little do i know about either.. I'm much better at putting a real arrow on target that for sure. orion, the dippers, north star and such are fun to look for and comes handy for navigation.
here's Orion in comparison.
I see, the good old self referential definition. There is a good reason why they are not found in dictionaries.
Fundamental ideas cannot be defined can they. Except in terms of themselves or in terms of their relationships to other fundamental ideas, but if you consider all fundamental ideas to be a holistic set then ultimately, the only things that dictionaries are good for is to depict meanings rather than define them so Lola is at top of the class.
me neither but its probably because everything is electronic now days, and i dont get to read papers anymore. the horoscopes used to be on all of them. its fun and always so positive.
got to go... enjoy the weekend ya'll
sooo right Hi-Ho !....if a horoscope is placebic then it served its purpose. has a place. ppl that condescend it like elroch did on his thread ?....then i have news 4him. He can rest that he can't be responsible others happiness - cuz we wont let him.
(,,,,and thx Opti....<3L )
I see, the good old self referential definition. There is a good reason why they are not found in dictionaries.
Fundamental ideas cannot be defined can they. Except in terms of themselves or in terms of their relationships to other fundamental ideas, but if you consider all fundamental ideas to be a holistic set then ultimately, the only things that dictionaries are good for is to depict meanings rather than define them so Lola is at top of the class.
In some sense that is true, but ideas are defined by their relationship to other ideas in an English dictionary. In mathematics very simple axioms are used as the starting point - probability theory is a branch of pure mathematics that is typically built on the same foundations of logic and set theory as other branches.
Intuitively, I don't see any difficulty in the idea of some quantifiable entity (a future observation say) about which one does not have complete information (complete information is when you know the quantity). And that is what randomness is.
Of course, given this starting point, you want a way to quantify it. This leads to probability theory and its applications in information theory, communication theory and physics (all of which deal with incomplete information).
True randomness does not exist. It is not really a concept worth delving into but if you like then we can discuss the logical implications further. It isn't just against the laws of physics, but the very nature of reality itself at the metaphysical level of analysis.