The dieroll in this case has six possible outcomes, the coinflip only two. Thus one has more randomness than the other. I don't think that's controversial.
Au contraire, the unbalanced coin is less random. That's what makes it unfair mon frere.
05-21-2019 07:20 PM
#27151
| |
The dieroll in this case has six possible outcomes, the coinflip only two. Thus one has more randomness than the other. I don't think that's controversial. | |
05-21-2019 10:30 PM
#27152
| |
| |
05-21-2019 10:39 PM
#27153
| |
An electron's identity is the collection of physical properties which define it. All electrons are identical. In physics we say electrons are indistinguishable. (All fundamental particles are indistinguishable, in fact.) | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-21-2019 at 11:03 PM.
| |
05-21-2019 11:01 PM
#27154
| |
That's what Einstein thought, too. So... I guess you're in good company by holding this skepticism. | |
| |
05-21-2019 11:02 PM
#27155
| |
| |
05-22-2019 12:29 AM
#27156
| |
I don't know how you can agree with it, it's self contradictory. On the one hand, he says that something is "more random" if it simply has more outcomes, while on the other he's saying something is less random if it's unbalanced, despite having the same number of outcomes. Surely if randomness is the number of potential outcomes, an unbalanced coin and a balanced coin are equally random. | |
| |
05-22-2019 12:54 AM
#27157
| |
This exposes the problem with such a loose definition of "random". When it's ill defined, it can mean different things, | |
| |
05-22-2019 06:26 AM
#27158
| |
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-22-2019 at 06:30 AM. | |
05-22-2019 06:35 AM
#27159
| |
More probability theory: pure randomness is unbiased, which is what makes it self-correcting. This eventually leads to fun things like the bell curve. | |
05-22-2019 06:38 AM
#27160
| |
Wheeee! | |
05-22-2019 08:49 AM
#27161
| |
That vid is a fantastic example of something we call random that isn't random. | |
| |
05-22-2019 09:23 AM
#27162
| |
05-22-2019 09:29 AM
#27163
| |
Far a coin with 2 outcomes, we can show that the "most random" case is when the probability of flipping heads is the same as the probability of flipping tails, and that any imbalance makes the coin flip less random, to the limit where one side flips 100% of the time and the other flips 0% and we've lost all randomness. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-22-2019 at 09:37 AM.
| |
05-22-2019 09:37 AM
#27164
| |
The "problem" is that we're using a rigorously defined mathematical definition of random, and but you're not. | |
| |
05-22-2019 09:38 AM
#27165
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 09:40 AM
#27166
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 09:47 AM
#27167
| |
It's worth noting that QM is about both. Hard determinism coupled with statistical randomness. | |
| |
05-22-2019 09:48 AM
#27168
| |
| |
05-22-2019 09:54 AM
#27169
| |
One of my favorite demos involves a piece of tech that I must describe first. | |
| |
05-22-2019 10:15 AM
#27170
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 10:28 AM
#27171
| |
05-22-2019 10:29 AM
#27172
| |
Fuck me, learn how to post images. | |
| |
05-22-2019 10:31 AM
#27173
| |
You can flip that Galton board 'till the end of time and it's always going to produce that binomial distribution, within the error bars of that specific geometry and number of balls. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-22-2019 at 10:35 AM.
| |
05-22-2019 10:32 AM
#27174
| |
eh, yeah I forgot what soft determinism was. It's actually about free will. I thought the argument was that since QM can include randomness this somehow gives us free will. | |
05-22-2019 10:33 AM
#27175
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 10:35 AM
#27176
| |
05-22-2019 10:36 AM
#27177
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 10:37 AM
#27178
| |
05-22-2019 10:41 AM
#27179
| |
05-22-2019 10:45 AM
#27180
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 10:45 AM
#27181
| |
The whole point is that random variables can be the result of deterministic physics. Whether or not the minutia of motions is random or not is another question entirely. I agree that the system is rigorously deterministic on scales above the QM realm. | |
| |
05-22-2019 10:46 AM
#27182
| |
| |
05-22-2019 10:51 AM
#27183
| |
| |
| |
05-22-2019 12:24 PM
#27184
| |
Error bars are the standard error, which is stdev/sqrt(n). So as long as n < infinite and stdev > 0 then se will always be se > 0. | |
05-22-2019 12:33 PM
#27185
| |
You're completely missing a very important fact about QM. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-22-2019 at 12:36 PM.
| |
05-22-2019 12:47 PM
#27186
| |
This is certainly not the case. Many neuroscientists and physicists have put a hard no on this one. | |
| |
05-24-2019 10:09 AM
#27187
| |
Which is not to say that consciousness is not a very useful way to describe human behavior. | |
| |
05-24-2019 01:14 PM
#27188
| |
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison. | |
| |
05-24-2019 02:10 PM
#27189
| |
The solution to pollution is dilution, yes. | |
| |
05-24-2019 03:37 PM
#27190
| |
I heard a lot of soldiers in WW1 died from eating chlorine. | |
05-30-2019 06:51 AM
#27191
| |
Another one of those "but guns" cases | |
| |
05-30-2019 07:15 AM
#27192
| |
Killer Kampground Kathy lol. | |
05-30-2019 10:58 AM
#27193
| |
Y'all seem to not see the difference between the immorality of an outright ban vs. the immorality of unregulated access. | |
| |
05-30-2019 11:52 AM
#27194
| |
And my argument is as follows: | |
| |
05-30-2019 12:23 PM
#27195
| |
DO YOU WANT COMMUNISM? What part of 'inalienable right' don't you understand? What about innocent until proven guilty?! How will she unsuccessfully defend herself against tyranny? | |
| |
05-30-2019 01:44 PM
#27196
| |
| |
| |
05-30-2019 02:58 PM
#27197
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-30-2019 at 03:01 PM. | |
05-30-2019 03:00 PM
#27198
| |
05-30-2019 03:06 PM
#27199
| |
| |
05-30-2019 03:07 PM
#27200
| |
| |
05-30-2019 03:46 PM
#27201
| |
05-30-2019 04:09 PM
#27202
| |
@ Jack: | |
| |
05-30-2019 04:17 PM
#27203
| |
What you're missing is that Kathy misbehaving is not a reason to curtail MMM's rights. | |
| |
05-30-2019 04:47 PM
#27204
| |
Do you think Kathy is going to be so brave with a knife as she is with a gun? | |
05-30-2019 05:03 PM
#27205
| |
The biggest sporting even in the world is happening next month. Anyone want to take a guess what it is? | |
| |
05-30-2019 08:42 PM
#27206
| |
I have no reason to speculate upon how clever and/or innovative Kathy would be under different legal circumstances. I certainly see nothing to indicate that she'd do nothing at all, or that she was only acting confrontationally because of the gun. For all I know she'd have brandished a rake or attack dog or nail gun or anything else that would visually convey her meaning and intent. | |
| |
05-30-2019 11:48 PM
#27207
| |
I agree with you. But then, my points are: | |
| |
05-31-2019 01:12 AM
#27208
| |
I'm sure she does a lot of things you and I would disagree with, but that almost none of those disagreements amount to our right to take away her toys. | |
| |
05-31-2019 04:52 AM
#27209
| |
After consideration and trying to see past the arguments, I'm with MMM here. I also don't support a total ban on weapons, I support strict background checks, permits, waiting periods, mandatory training, etc. The stricter, the more powerful the weapon, where you better have a REALLY good justification for having an automatic weapon. Hunting, self protection etc would not be sufficient reasons. 99.99% would not open or concealed carry, those things would be in locked cabinets. | |
05-31-2019 04:54 AM
#27210
| |
The discrepancy in force between fat old Kathy with a kitchen knife trying to stab someone and fat old Kathy with a gun is obvious. | |
05-31-2019 06:44 AM
#27211
| |
05-31-2019 10:10 AM
#27212
| |
I think the reason I can't understand is because we're defining words differently. I don't want to be presumptuous but I prefer the dictionary definition of words, so when you say someone turns guilty the moment they do something bad and then by the force of magic their rights should be revoked... I genuinely do not understand what you're saying. | |
| |
05-31-2019 01:11 PM
#27213
| |
05-31-2019 02:49 PM
#27214
| |
Whereas I think you're not interested in understanding me, only in changing my mind to agree with you. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 05-31-2019 at 02:51 PM.
| |
05-31-2019 04:01 PM
#27215
| |
You made the statement that the woman was innocent until she did the thing, and then she was guilty. Not that she ought to be guilty. To claim that I am misdirecting for accurately reading your statement is a cunty thing to do. | |
| |
05-31-2019 04:12 PM
#27216
| |
You're really taking all this too personally, oskar. | |
| |
05-31-2019 04:21 PM
#27217
| |
Don't get your cuntflaps tangled up on your way out. | |
| |
05-31-2019 04:24 PM
#27218
| |
You are willing to have an obscenely elevated level of gun deaths and your justification is the blatantly inconsistent idea that not being able to own every conceivable weapon is a violation of the presumption of innocence, but the current level of restrictions is not sufficiently a violation of your presumption of innocence to be worried about. This is complete nonsense no matter how you turn it. | |
| |
05-31-2019 04:31 PM
#27219
| |
| |
05-31-2019 05:13 PM
#27220
| |
| |
05-31-2019 09:52 PM
#27221
| |
I'm frustrated, too, but I'm not being disrespectful. | |
| |
06-01-2019 02:14 AM
#27222
| |
Thank you for clarifying this. It may have been clear to you but it wasn't entirely clear to me until now. | |
06-01-2019 02:33 AM
#27223
| |
My bad, I should have stressed the hypothetical. I meant, like, the hypothetical and somehow miraculous accumulation of 1kg of antimatter. | |
| |
06-01-2019 05:31 AM
#27224
| |
Antimatter could be used as a weapon against someone who's trespassing on your property. It could also be used as an energy source if you're clever enough. I'd imagine 1kg of antimatter would boil a metric fuck ton of water. In fact it's probably the metric measure of a fuck ton. How much water boils when we throw a kg of antimatter in it. | |
| |
06-01-2019 06:58 AM
#27225
| |
"I'd like a flamethrower to deal with a wasp nest in my back garden, please." | |