I was a logical positivist until I was about 18 or 19. Then a girlfriend got me to open my mind a bit. The results were startling. Runs of luck are real and tied in with our mental states.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
so true. the question is how much does consciousness alter stuff ? and is the power of positive thinking for really real ?
I think the problem is that people shut down their magical thinking by trying to think logically all the time. A successful person is both logical and magical. Such people tend to attract good fortune. Time and again, one hears people deriding magical thinking. It's nothing to do with religion.
A gambler's fallacy is that when you have had a lot of blacks on the roulette wheel a red is more likely.
The Law of Large #'s takes us to....
It is important to remember that the Law of Large Numbers only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others
Archie proved it. Sad he couldn't stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Karas
Feb 11, 2020
0
#826
MustangMate wrote:
I'll explain. 1st, I don't deny the validity of the odds. A valuable tool in making decision. The odds are based on a period of time. Logically, it's assumed they'll average out, whether 2 variables or a dozen are in play.
But PATTERNS emerge short time.
Do you not understand that your identification of a pattern involves a new estimate of the odds? There are two possibilities here. Either you have spotted some predictable behaviour that requires a more sophisticated model or you are misinterpreting noise as pattern (very common).
You really need to provide an example. Make sure it is in a situation where it is feasible that someone might use a simple probabilistic model and stick to it (eg a roulette wheel, rolling dice).
Feb 11, 2020
0
#827
I like the "magical" thinking description. The label applies because for too many it appears so, but the thinker knows no real magic is used.
Fidel Castro held a reception for Muhammad Ali. Ali loved to play the prankster. The disappearing handkerchief was a favorite, one he performed for Fidel. Being fooled, Fidel asked how was that done? To the dismay of all magicians, Muhammad revealed how the illusion works.
As I said earlier, all adults are fooled, their brains having become conditioned how to think by cultural and environmental circumstance. But for a child of 5, they intuitively know where the handkerchief is.With no pre-conditioning there is but one answer.
To explain without fully giving up the illusion. The child does not see where it went, as do not adults. He also does not see the method, as it's cleverly disguised. But the child will intuitively respond - it's in your hand ! Although he can not see the handkerchief, nor did he see the method, where else can it be ? Adults often fail to see the obvious. Physical evidence may not be present. Something things happen but only one way.
Feb 11, 2020
0
#828
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
I'll explain. 1st, I don't deny the validity of the odds. A valuable tool in making decision. The odds are based on a period of time. Logically, it's assumed they'll average out, whether 2 variables or a dozen are in play.
But PATTERNS emerge short time.
Do you not understand that your identification of a pattern involves a new estimate of the odds? There are two possibilities here. Either you have spotted some predictable behaviour that requires a more sophisticated model or you are misinterpreting noise as pattern (very common).
You really need to provide an example. Make sure it is in a situation where it is feasible that someone might use a simple probabilistic model and stick to it (eg a roulette wheel, rolling dice).
A hopeless task. As evidenced by your initial response, reducing the event to "a new estimate of the odds" and "there are only two possibilities here" it's clear no explanation will fit. You'll find another way to same the thing. Everything becomes reduced to your mathematical logic, which governs your worldly views. Suffice to say mine is different. To debate you on this topic is a dead end from the get go. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mathematical odds. You insist it does. Kinda a dead end street, don't ya think? I don't have any agenda, nor desire to convince people of I'm right, nor that you're wrong. Just sharing ideas here.
Feb 11, 2020
0
#829
Do you not understand that your identification of a pattern involves a new estimate of the odds? -Elroch
I understand this much, I wont's estimate the odds, but will correctly identify the EXACT odds. I also understand the odds are NOT the only variable in play and do not base all my decisions based solely on the "best odds". Viewing the world through such a lens is quite shallow, never recognizing the magic and wonder that nature provides.
there ain't no cure
there ain't no cure
there ain't no cure ... for Love - Leonard Cohen
The Law of Large Numbers can help us u/s akinda 'momentum' in numbers. like when the #8 shows up 7 outta 10 times. or when it doesnt show up for 400 spins.
Does it defy the LLN ?....nope, cuzzit hasnt broken its law. does it really happen ?....yep. all the time. does it make sense ?....uknow, mystify u ?....well, that would depend if u govern ur life by #'s or not.
btw, if u DO govern ur life by numbers ?....then ur probably lacking big-selfie perspective and cant snap out of it. math is ur crutch and it helps u make sense outta whats going on around u day after day.
iows, the world scares u & its ur last defense. sad.
remember that one famous statement ?....rules are there to be broken ?
well, odds are there to be defied. lol !!
now. do 'hot' #'s and their repeats that repel odds 'prove' randomness ?....well, im not sure if u can extend it to that, but if ur willing to go there w/ me ?....then we'll go 
!
Feb 11, 2020
0
#833
Random ideas come instantly...study...study,,,study
No other way to learn chess but to learn endgame...I Invite you to watch and learn my YouTube Chess Channel...its free to subscribe......FM Jesse
lichess.org/coach/CoachJesse
www.youtube.com/channel/UC19el2OO2z-aWnLlyuu8ToQ
Cheers...I hope my YouTube Chess Channel would be of help to improve your chess skills to attain much higher rating....kindly subscribe its free...just press click....FM Jesse
lichess? Get lost, you're not welcome here.
As to the 'law of a larger cranium' I will side with the person who has the larger 'heart' any day.
Did you know that the unicorn is the national animal of Scotland?
KingAxelson wrote:
lichess? Get lost, you're not welcome here.
As to the 'law of a larger cranium' I will side with the person who has the larger 'heart' any day.
....LOL !!
(thx Axel !)
lol No prob. : )
Feb 11, 2020
0
#838
MustangMate wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
I'll explain. 1st, I don't deny the validity of the odds. A valuable tool in making decision. The odds are based on a period of time. Logically, it's assumed they'll average out, whether 2 variables or a dozen are in play.
But PATTERNS emerge short time.
Do you not understand that your identification of a pattern involves a new estimate of the odds? There are two possibilities here. Either you have spotted some predictable behaviour that requires a more sophisticated model or you are misinterpreting noise as pattern (very common).
You really need to provide an example. Make sure it is in a situation where it is feasible that someone might use a simple probabilistic model and stick to it (eg a roulette wheel, rolling dice).
A hopeless task. As evidenced by your initial response, reducing the event to "a new estimate of the odds" and "there are only two possibilities here" it's clear no explanation will fit. You'll find another way to same the thing. Everything becomes reduced to your mathematical logic, which governs your worldly views. Suffice to say mine is different. To debate you on this topic is a dead end from the get go. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the mathematical odds. You insist it does. Kinda a dead end street, don't ya think? I don't have any agenda, nor desire to convince people of I'm right, nor that you're wrong. Just sharing ideas here.
Sorry, but that doesn't wash, when you have spent several posts claiming (without providing a single genuine example) that you have some superior way of judging the probability of events than probability theory.
I am sure you believe this, so how can there be any harm in stating what at least one example of this might be?
they say the thing about doing a bernoulli trial is (taking like, say, 1BB trials) ?....that it will most likely show a *common sense* convergence to 50%. the counter is that the hard count itself will probably diverge away from 500MM each - as the count goes on.
iows, if we finish witha whopping 2MM diff btwn heads and tails ?....denominating the total trial count from the diff still takes us to 49.9% accuracy. and 1/10th a 1 pct is worth having a glass of white wine over !
Either you have spotted some predictable behaviour that requires a more sophisticated model>>>
That is obviously correct.
<<<or you are misinterpreting noise as pattern (very common).>>>
But that is very easy to do. A person has to be VERY aware of what's going on in their own head.
All told, seeing the pattern is more instinctive than intuitive.
What is thought as random may well be order ... or what is thought to be order may well be random.
Or it might actually all be all the same thing. The mind's tendency to insist on separation is false.
The confusion begins with a conditioned belief it's either or. Similar to a belief there must be a beginning and an end. To think otherwise, presents the mind with a paradox, something counter-intuitive. Our minds gravitate towards acceptance of things easily understood. With age, it rejects other ideas out of hand. As Lola eloquently often points out kindergarten kids know such things. It's only after being "conditioned" to how the world works do perceptions change.
An example. I'll perform the disappearing handkerchief trick before an audience. I will not allow anyone younger than 7 to participate. Why? I've yet to encounter anyone older who was not fooled. Had not a clue where the handkerchief went or how it reappeared. (unless they had prior knowledge naturally). Perform the trick to a 5 year old ? Busted every time. They intuitively know where it went and will reveal the trick to all !