Ghostess frequently proves the existence of randomness.
I will point out that physics implies the world is not deterministic. Therefore anyone who agrees the world is not deterministic is agreeing with me (and all the physicists) to some extent!
....that is unless STEM's for Science, Tech, Existentialism, Metaphysics.
the randomness in the dice roll is the time u roll a two... for eample 1,4,3,5,2,6,1,2,4,3,5,6 is random.. but the amount of the same number is the same
i might go w/ it if a reasonable pattern emerged where the test's goal was reached (parity), say 100 times in 10,000 roll count (1% yay)....just throwing out #'s now. and if using a 36# wheel ?....would that make some kinda asymptotic ln-x that would be useful ? iows, comparing the two, could they be going to the same place down the road ?
king, yea, lol. i think that women are naturals at this, but some men too. i knew a girl that took this 'appearance reading' to extremes. and she was very successful in assessing people like that. she takes everything into account, from the sole of your shoes up to your hat and everything in between. and i mean everything. its was fun watching her do that.
there's a famous story about an american spy that got caught just because the way he sat.. apparently europian men and americans men cross their legs differently when they sit, but thats more of body language reading,
you got me curious now.. please share your personal experience if its cool with you.
I think that you posted the wrong link. flame throwers? yes, im familiar with the boring company. first i thought that its just like any other tunnels (just an underground road) but then i saw a presentation and its different idea. you actually park your car on a sort of flat bed that carries you with it. it seemed like a very shaky ride,
but that was just the first try outs. so they'll probably improve on that.
@ Silver.. What link did you think I was going to post.? lol Anyway, yeah flamethrowers! It’s in that interview, here I’ll post it. https://youtu.be/ycPr5-27vSI
They talk about it literally in the first minute. Musk has a sense of humor too which is cool.
Thought I would finish up with that intuitive equation while I’m thinking about it.
As a side note, I am now starting to ponder if ‘bonds’ ‘closeness’ ‘love’ actually amplify this anomaly. (Intuitiveness)..
So, this event happened last century, and then some. We had a ranch property out in the country, nice place really chill. I was home with my step father and brother.
I was in my room doing something I should not have been doing. (Totally Random, no prior patterns to latch onto!) About an half hour later, mother comes home and bursts into the house. Step dad comes out to greet her.
She is border line hysterical.. “Is everything ok, is everything alright?” Looking all around as she’s saying it. Step dad did everything to assure her everything was fine. She looked my way, but it was non chalant. If I spelled that right.
Trust me when I say this.. I positively knew it was me. It should not have registered on anybody’s charts for any reason, that I know. Oddly enough, I wrote a poem one time called ‘Heightened Awareness’ I wonder what ever happened to it.
plz try2find it. I would luv2read it 
.
plz try2find it. I would luv2read it .
Much love young lady. But I am struggling to reclaim several songs, and several poems that were given to me over time. This sux..
(songs not my words. Poems totally my words.)
Ghostess frequently proves the existence of randomness.
I will point out that physics implies the world is not deterministic. Therefore anyone who agrees the world is not deterministic is agreeing with me (and all the physicists) to some extent!
....that is unless STEM's for Science, Tech, Existentialism, Metaphysics.
It ain't. Thank reality.
the randomness in the dice roll is the time u roll a two... for eample 1,4,3,5,2,6,1,2,4,3,5,6 is random.. but the amount of the same number is the same
i might go w/ it if a reasonable pattern emerged where the test's goal was reached (parity), say 100 times in 10,000 roll count (1% yay)....just throwing out #'s now. and if using a 36# wheel ?....would that make some kinda asymptotic ln-x that would be useful ? iows, comparing the two, could they be going to the same place down the road ?
If you believe anything other than the fact that the proportion of 2s from a regular die is 1/6, pick your alternative hypothesis and we can have a series of bets on it for money.
[OP post #1....]
statistically If you throw a dice 12 million times it will fall 2m times on each # right? so how exactly is this random? wouldn't you expect a random spread?
(stuff in bwtn....)
4.Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it.
****
interesting point Ukee !
If you believe anything other than the fact that the proportion of 2s from a regular die is 1/6, pick your alternative hypothesis and we can have a series of bets on it for money.
here....
the more "facts" you spew ?....the more i dont trust you.
[OP post #1....]
statistically If you throw a dice 12 million times it will fall 2m times on each # right? so how exactly is this random? wouldn't you expect a random spread?
(stuff in bwtn....)
4.Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it.
****
interesting point Ukee !
I have stated the same point on several occasions.
Regarding a die, our "ignorance" is maximal in the sense that there is no reason to have a different view about any two of the numbers. If (as a result of that) all of the numbers have equal probability, this probability has to be 1/6.
good to see you king. yea, i was expecting a video.. thanks for posting it, i was wondering why you mentioned a flamethrower. i just watched the first minute and its cool, these flame throwers looks kinda neat, i wonder if they used them for the charring of the boring building in the background of the photo.
not going to ask what were you doing in your 'bad'room : )
something really weird happen to me some years ago too, more then one actually but one very notable that i can only explain by extreme chance, or some sort of 'intuition' lol. im not sure even how to put it in words for it to make sense. maybe another time.
so what else is going on?
well elroch, if you are sincere about your belief in FW then im happy for you. it just seem odd that you didnt say something like..
"yes. i believe in FW to this or that extent". maybe add a simple definition, and thats it.
instead, you came with arguments against it.
here's a recent example.. did i misunderstand you?
Elroch: "Experiments show that decisions are made before people are conscious of the decision. The person believes that they consciously made the decision, but the temporal order makes this impossible: rather consciousness is a construction of the brain after the event."
if for whatever reason you dont feel comfortable talking openly about it, its ok. we'll drop it. i just really like to understand people when we have a conversation.
I have stated the same point on several occasions.
u have ?....then why dont we make it ur thread ? maybe u can take it away from Ukee. as ur overpowering it (w/ ur facts of flimsy) as it is.
I am not rubbishing the idea of free will. I am just pointing out that it has no fundamental differences from the behaviour of all physical entities. The specialness of the "free will" associated with humans lies entirely in the very sophisticated nature of the physical brain, which makes it very versatile and subtle, rather than any magical "freedom".
if i ever seen glibbery? this is it. the rest is just more of the same.
you've been rubbishing FW since the topic came up here, and you weren't shy about bringing arguments against it to pronounce your disbelief in it. the only thing you were shy about was stating your opinion in a clear, plain, and none ambiguous language, despite my very direct request for you to do so.
and its ok. im sure you have your reasons.
but because your interest seem to consist of making 'funny' statements without having a meaningful dialog about them, i just dont see the point in keep going at it.
He knows I outclass him and so can always find his mistakes?.
well elroch, if you are sincere about your belief in FW then im happy for you. it just seem odd that you didnt say something like..
"yes. i believe in FW to this or that extent". maybe add a simple definition, and thats it.
instead, you came with arguments against it.
here's a recent example.. did i misunderstand you?
Elroch: "Experiments show that decisions are made before people are conscious of the decision. The person believes that they consciously made the decision, but the temporal order makes this impossible: rather consciousness is a construction of the brain after the event."
For instance, this is saying very little. If the event is an external phenomenon which excites the senses so that an observation of it is made, then the observation comes after the event and the conscious interpretation comes after the observation. The idea that "the brain creates consciousness (as a rationalisation)" is nonsensical, although it's an idea frequently put forward. Indeed, the brain requires consciousness in order to portray anything in our cognitive awareness. If it weren't for our cognitive awareness, we wouldn't be as aware that we are alive as otherwise and so our survival drive would be less. As it is, our survival drive is unconscious, as in trees, instinctive, as in lower animals, and also rational, as in higher animals and man.
Anyone who hasn't noticed that I am the only one to have provided an exact definition of the only concept of free will which is scientifically justified (and which is consistent with Conway and Kochen, and with the common viewpoint of most neuroscientists and psychologists who deal with this issue) hasn't been following. Perhaps they are too busy claiming they are qualified to "correct" me?
Yes. The proportion of a single number is very likely to be close to 1/6 in the long run (it is possible to calculate how likely).