None of that is even metaphorically related to my position.
Really. I'm about done with this. I get you. You don't seem capable of getting me.
Whatever.
Printable View
The government (here) treats violent criminals by throwing them in jail. It doesn't take away their right to own dangerous weapons because they never had that right to begin with.
Because in our cultures, owning any kind of gun you want isn't considered a "right".
Rather, it's viewed as dangerous to yourself and society. We can't see any reason why anyone should be allowed to keep a hangun or an AK47 around the house. Even if it's fun to go to the range and shoot up some targets with it (and it probably is), that doesn't mean you have the "right" to own one any more than you have the "right" to drink and drive because driving around pissed is fun. Collectively, our soceities have decided it's not worth the risk. Even if a lot of people might be able to do it without hurting anyone, there's going to be more injuries and deaths if you allow it than if you don't.
We also don't have a history of overthrowing a tyrannical despot with our militia. This argument that you need a gun to keep the government from tyrannizing you doesn't seem very strong because in today's world, if the gov't wants to come and take you away, you can't stand and fight and expect to win (and that's no different in the US where citizens face much fewer restrictions on what weapons they can own). And it won't matter if you loosen the restrictions further, the gov't is always going to have more firepower than you. So if your argument is you'd like to preserve the option to put up a futile defense to some hypothetical potential tyranny, we don't see that as compelling argument.
Which leads to the final point: What you have in your constitution as a "right" is outdated and dangerous in the modern world. You can't overthrow the government with muskets any more, or even with machine guns, so what is the point of letting you keep them around the house, or walk around carrying a handgun, if neither of those will serve the purpose intended by the 2nd amendment?
In the end, you either have to trust your government to not use its weapons unfairly against its citizens, or you have to give the citizens a fighting chance to overthrow it. The two ways to level that playing field are to disarm the government or give citizens access to modern battlefield weaponry. And since disarming the government would restrict your national defense to a disorganized mob, and individual citizens generally can't afford modern battlefield weaponry, it looks as though you're left with having a government monopoly on powerful weapons.
Or, you can ignore that logic and choose to maintain the "right" to protect yourself from tyranny no matter how ineffective it may be or what other negative effects that may have on your society.
A: Would you like to have a debate about a subject of your choice?
B: 12 potatoes and an elephant.
A: Um, what?
B: Citation needed.
A: Are you drunk?
B: I gotta go, I win, see ya.
Maybe it was banana. I will never go back to look at anyone's post. That won't lead anywhere. Just so we're clear: Your only argument is that you need guns to fight potential tyranny. I assume the hunting thing is not something we're willing to lose kids over. Especially since we're at most talking about slightly inconveniencing hunters. No spraying and praying, but you can still hunt.Quote:
I never said that.
Oh wow, really? No, not really, right? I mean if you draw a line between a cotton swab and doomsday machine, I think we can both agree that there's a point where you'd go: ok, maybe not that!Quote:
No. I'm not interested in the fact that there are different guns. My assertion of the inalienable right to a means of lethal force makes no limiting stipulations on how good the means are at that purpose.
My position on school shootings is that the crazy person being in the school in the first place is the problem, whether or not they had guns.
So we're basically just disagreeing on where you draw that line.
This is not the case. The the legislative is different from the executive. It is very important that it is, but that is the case, so I don't understand your argument.Quote:
Because I'm incredulous at the notion that the best move is to let people without restrictions on what guns they can have impose restrictions on what guns other people can have.
How are you not?
I know freedom is a huge meme in the US, but you have to understand that it's just a meme. You're not free. At all. You're not free to operate any piece of machinery you like. You're not free to do high voltage installations. You're not even free to sell potatoes unless you agree to food inspections. You're definitely not free to manufacture heroin. It's not like you are otherwise free to own whatever you want and do whatever you want.Quote:
How are you OK with having your rights curtailed when you have done nothing to warrant such?
Because innocent until proven guilty seems like a high moral standard worth upholding.
Do you not agree?
On the list of freedoms I care about, owning a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine is not very high on that list. I like my freedom not to be jailed for carrying certain plants, or my freedom to no be forcibly separated from my children, or the freedom to trade my soy beans with china, or my freedom to not be sent to fight economic wars when I signed up to protect my country.
I don't like restrictions when they're not warranted. When it comes to building codes, I fucking love them! Licenses to operate vehicles and machinery: awesome! Why do I love those: because if you don't have them, people die.
Old John McArbuckle might be a bit grumpy that he has to get a certificate to connect an FCL, but then later Little Suzy doesn't burn to death, so it was probably worth it.
This year they lifted the restriction on silencers over here. Why: There's no problem with gun deaths, so they lift restrictions. I don't care about that. But if you have a clear problem with gun related deaths - among children of all people, you should be ok with restrictions. You're not out on the street protesting against your drivers license. Why is a drivers license for guns a no-go?
I gotta tell ya, I try to be polite but I feel so dumb having to answer this.Quote:
If not all guns are bad, but only some guns, then what is the difference between those guns?
Is it that some guns don't kill? No. So your argument that guns are bad because they kill holds no water.
You're both not against other things that kill being outlawed, and you're in favor of some guns that kill not being outlawed."
Would you care to address this? 'Cause to me, it shows 1 more inconsistency in your position.
Break barrel gun: very bad for mass murder
Semi automatic gun with high capacity magazine: very convenient for mass murder
That is the difference.
It's about proportionality and trade offs. Road deaths suck. It would be great if that could be reduced but stopping commerce would cause more deaths than you currently have road deaths. I'm all for automation and investing in car alternatives. I am open for changes - That is the most important difference here.
Oh, and I realize you literally respond to that in the next paragraph with this, which I find absolutely mind bending:
WHAT?Quote:
If you want to tell me why you hold the position you hold, then I'm all ears. If you say a reason that doesn't seem in line with my sense of reality, then I'll question it. Those questions are not indicative of my reasons for my position, they're indicative of holes I think I see in your reasoning.
That is the position I hold: break barrel guns: bad at killing many people. Semi automatic high capacity rifles: good at killing many people.
You're not questioning it so it is in line with your sense of reality, right?
But those "questions" - they're not questions, they're statements, are not indicative of your reasons for your position - Why would I care about those... I don't care if you care about my reasons for my positions, I only care about my position to be sound. If there are holes in my position, I would absolutely appreciate it if you would point them out rather than just stating that there are holes in my reasoning.
But the government is limiting it. There are loads of weapons you can't own. What's up with that?Quote:
I disagree that the gov't has any moral authority limit this inalienable right as I see it.
Yup, this is the point I really should not have let go. If I understand correctly, that is MMM's hill to die on, and if so I want to know what the historical precedent is or if there is any.
I also can't get behind the hero worship of the founding fathers. A bunch of syphilitic slave owners who would shit their pants and run the opposite direction at the sight of a steam locomotive. Thomas Jefferson raped his slave. There I said it. Fuck them, fuck the constitution, fuck them up their dried up dead assholes. Fuck tyrants.
In Alabama, life starts at rape!Quote:
Yeah but what about the freedom to stop a teenage girl from having an abortion after someone rapes her?
I'll pick on MMM for a change.
Saying that controlling people's right to carry arms may lead to worse infringements of civil rights sounds a bit like a slippery slope argument.
Saying that fixing gun laws when there are other issues that cause more deaths is wrong sounds a bit like whataboutism.
Should people be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
This is how the NRA spins people's minds. Caution: LONG as shit. But you need full context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYyX7O02yOg
And this is the funny version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJJI6M77pA&t=636s
Even after you've served your prison sentence, you are still not allowed to own a gun. I.e. you've shown you can't be trusted, so your rights have been curtailed by due process of law.
Arguing that someone never had the right to begin with is ignoring my stance that is already a problem.
If you're telling me why you think what you think, then thank you.
If you're trying to understand my position, you're missing it. My position is that the gov't has no right to restrict anyone's means to lethal force until and unless they've committed a crime. The criminalization of someone merely owning a tool for their defense, whether on not that makes them actually safer is immoral.
The ability to kill is a fundamental right of life. Humans are alive. Therefore we have a right to kill.
QED
If someone misuses their right, then that right can be taken away, but not prior to that. Anything else is assigning guilt before any crime, and antithetical to any rational moral code of law, IMO.
Since when is dangerous against the law? This is an absurd standard that "we" wouldn't dream of trying to apply broadly as a core principle of moral jurisprudence.
If the topic is why things are the way they are, then of course you're right. However, that's not the topic. The topic is what we each things should be. Your argument that "society" says you're right, so you're right is fine if it's fine for you, but it's just not interesting or compelling to me in any way.
The argument that there's more death if we adhere to the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is unfortunate, but no reason to abandon such a worthwhile moral basis for jurisprudence.
There is a cost to freedom and the fact that bad guys get at least one bad act before we can prove they're bad has consequences.
I'm perfectly OK with that cost of freedom. I don't understand at all how you can argue that it's not worth the cost.
None of this is anything to do with my position, and I've directly clarified how it is not at least once in this conversation.
If you persist in ignoring me and arguing against some fabricated bogeyman you want to argue with, then that's fine, too, I guess, but it's nothing to do with me.
To wit: your first sentence is akin to arguing that since you can't defeat tyranny, you have no right to fight it. I wholly disagree with this sentiment.
The 2nd sentence is the reason that ANY gun control is immoral.
"So if your argument is [...]"
That's not my argument. I mean... at least it's closer than you've been, so that's something.
My argument hinges on a fundamental human right, which goes beyond any snapshot of either of our cultures today.
You've never addressed my concerns that humans are brutal and unpredictable, and that genocides happen almost constantly somewhere on Earth. You haven't addressed my concerns that your world view is perfectly ignorant of the cruel realities of what humans do to each other, especially when there's a power imbalance and cultural divide.
Thank you for sharing your opinion on my government's short comings. Yours is pretty perfect, so you got me there.
:rolleyes:
Your view of the modern world that ignores genocides, pirates, and other forms of human brutality is naive at best, and dangerously cruel if your bet on the long-term stability of things turns out to be a bad one.
As for the rest... You keep making this argument that the restriction are already far too broad and immoral and undermine our constitution. I agree. What I don't get is your conclusion on that subject.
"The gov't can already tyrannize you if they want to, so you should just accept that and be a quiet little lamb with your head in the grass 'cause that will never, ever, ever, ever happen. No, don't look over there where it's happening. We're so much better than those savages. You don't need to worry about it."
Bbut the truth is that we're no different than those savages. We're just in a different place right now. Just like they were in a different place a couple-few decades ago and we'll be in a different place in a couple-few more decades.
False dichotomy isn't worth even addressing, IMO.
These are totally independent things.
EXACTLY!
So.... let me get this straight...
You're saying that removing gun restrictions wouldn't change anything because people already have the guns they can afford and not the ones they don't.
That's the underlying truth you're resting that assertion on, right?
This, please.
You make it sound like the negative effects are of consequence. They're not. They're less than so many other perfectly legal things. They just have a particular ugliness about them, and I get that the aesthetics are real bad.
However, aesthetics isn't really a reason to make morality laws, IMO.
Is that what this is?
Good thing I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the right to cause death is fundamental to all life. I'm saying the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" a good moral foundation.
I'm not saying it "may lead" to worse infringements. I'm saying it is an infringement.
If that was my reason for bringing it up, you'd be right, but that wasn't my reason.
My reason was to point out that there are tons of other potentially death-causing things that are perfectly legal and which no one is arguing should be restricted. My reason is that other people making the argument that guns are bad 'cause they cause death is incomplete at best, since that argument is not a standard they apply uniformly.
Yes. Permit required.
This is the critical word here. You don't need a gun for defense, except against other citizens with guns.
Sorry, but this isn't logical at all. Being alive doesn't give you "fundamental right" to kill. You must be trolling here.
Do you understand that some people only believe this is a right to begin with because it's in your constitution? It's not that it's a fundamental truth of the universe or something is it?
And if you accept that maybe your beliefs have been influenced by where you grew up, then maybe it's time to examine whether they're well-founded or not. That's the point of this discussion. It's not just 'hurr durr I gots me rights'. It's 'think about whether that right is really a thing worth having.'
This is the kind of thing you say that makes me believe you aren't actually thinking while you type.
And yet, most places have laws that attempt to protect their citizens from danger. Whether that's moral or not is another question I guess.
I'm not saying it should be compelling. I'm saying none of your arguments for the right to bear arms are sensible. Not one. And so maybe you should revisit your position on them.
Yeah, sorry I disagree with that preventing unnecessary deaths is not worth it.
Sounds like you're giving up on the whole 'protect self from tyranny' thing. Good.
It's not fundamental. It's not even a right in most places. Please stop trying to argue that the US constitution has some universal moral ascendancy. It's just a piece of paper with words on it like any other country's constitution.
I pointed out their irrelevancy to gun control several times early in this conversation. I also suggested you start a new thread on these issues and your proposed solutions to them, if you want to discuss them further. I don't see such a thread, so I'm not going to derail this topic here to address them.
Not sure what this means. I'm not suggesting my government is perfect. Only that gun control is a good idea.
Pretty much. The average citizen can't afford a Stealth Bomber. So the effect of making them legal to own would mean nothing to the average citizen.
Deaths are always of consequence to someone.
There are tons of reasons to have a gun for defense that do not involve humans being the thing you're defending against.
Yes, being alive does give you the fundamental right to kill. Look around, man. Everything that lives kills. Every single species. They choke out each others resources when they're not actively eating each other or fighting for territory. It is perfectly obvious that being alive grants the right to kill.
If you deny that, then... again... that's fine. I disagree with your world view, so there's no surprise we disagree on political policies.
You're the only one talking about the US Constitution. To the extent that my argument supports the 2nd Amendment, it's been mentioned. However, I've never rooted any part of my belief based on what is in any political document.
The presumption of innocence comes from 6th century Roman Law, according to wikipedia.
Will you start to address my beliefs based on what they are and stop putting straw men up for you to burn down?
While I could sit here and rattle off hundreds of dangerous items and activities which are perfectly legal, so who's the one being disingenuous in their arguments?
We're not talking about what "most places" do. At least, I'm not. If those reasons compel you, then that's fine. They do not compel me to ignore facts of nature and humans' place in it.
I've laid out very clear and linear links between my thoughts. If you choose not to follow them, then maybe that's because you're not really trying to understand them.
You'd rather fight the non-intelligent bogeyman that you can repeatedly defeat in your head, and that's fine with me.
Until and unless you actually address the issues and concerns I've presented, though... you're not really talking to me... you're talking near me.
Maybe you should revisit your position on what polite discourse between intelligent people who disagree looks like.
Wait. So you're saying that it's the "unnecessary deaths" that trouble you? What about all the other causes of "unnecessary deaths" that you are totally fine with being legal? Cars? Power tools? We had a plenty good society without those things. The Amish still do. These aren't some necessary elements of human livelihood. Do you accept that lots of things cause "unnecessary deaths?" Do you want all of those banned? If no, then where is the line drawn, and by whom, and based on what moral grounds do you support the location of that line?
Where did I ever say that anything at all "protects from tyranny?" This is another of your straw men.
I believe you have a right to fight tyranny. I did not say that fighting tyranny protects anyone from anything.
Again. I've never mentioned the US Constitution as any basis of my argument. One more straw man.
I see no sense in your response, then. Did you discount the history of human warfare? Are you ignoring the ongoing travesties we see around us? Are you still clawing at the hollow argument that since you aren't oppressed today, you wont be oppressed tomorrow?
If that's what you count as a rational response to my concerns, then - again - that's fine for you, but it's really not on my level. (not saying the levels are above below, just different).
Start a new thread if you like. I'm cool with that.
I'm just clarifying all the nonsense you and oskar keep ascribing to me. Very little of what I've said has gotten through to you without you spinning my words and positions into something they're not. So long as you misrepresent me, I will clarify those misrepresentations. If you ask me a question, I will answer it.
I hear you suggesting it, but you've yet to offer me any reason that is anywhere near as important as the presumption of innocence and the sober view of human aggressive tendencies.
Then the problem's already solved without any laws, and we don't need laws to restrict anyone's rights. Or put another way: your proposal to increase laws will be ineffectual because they do not change the status quo on the ground in any way at all. Care to walk that one back, man?
I've never, ever argued that deaths are of no consequence to anyone.
We're not talking about hurt feelings. We're talking about national death rates and the impact on national growth and stability and making the cold calculation as to at what point is the death rate worth reducing rights of non-criminals.
If you're not willing or able to set your own thoughts aside for long enough to understand mine, then why are you in this conversation about my thoughts?
There's nothing sudden about my support for licensing and regulations. Try to keep up.
I'm specifically against outright bans.
You're the only one arguing that the US Constitution is or should have any bearing in this conversation. What's messed up is that you say it shouldn't be part of it, but it's you who keeps bringing it up.
The word "right" means "morally good, justifiable, or acceptable." Just because it is possible to kill and it happens in nature does not make it a moral right.
And again, you're going off topic. We're talking about gun control as it applies to regular citizens. We've already conceded you can have a rifle for hunting or protecting yourself from bears. We're not talking about whether it's "right" for a robin to eat a worm.
Best I can tell, your beliefs are that you have a basic human right to carry whatever weapon you wish. The government cannot grant you that right, nor can it take it away. You only lose that right if you are judged guilty of a violent crime.
Our counter to this has been that you don't have such a fundamental right. You don't need a weapon to get by in the modern age (certain people like hunters excepted), and people that own dangerous weapons that they don't need are a risk to themselves and others.
If your arguments aren't understood, that's your fault not ours.
I've been trying to get you to stick to a topic most of the time.
Whenever you get nailed on a point, you change your angle.
First it was: let's talk about other causes of death instead of guns. These are more important. You got your answer to that: we're talking about guns here.
Then it was: 2nd amendment and need guns to protect from tyranny. You got your answer to that, it's a futile and outdated idea.
Then it was: but people need guns to hunt. You got your answer to that: no-one needs an AK47 to shoot a deer. Rifles and shotguns are ok, handguns and machine guns, not.
Now it's: everything has a right to kill. Please.
Back to trying to change the topic again. We're not talking about cars or drugs or broken glass. We're talking about guns.
Well, whatever. You want to fight tyranny not to protect yourself but just because. Fine, whatever your reasons are your fight is going to be ineffective and I don't want you to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else in the face while you're waiting for the government to come knock on your door.
You certainly were the first one to mention the 2nd amendment in this conversation. But now if you want to forget about that, that's fine with me. It's not about the 2nd amendment in your eyes, owning an assault rifle is a fundamental human right in your opinion. Gotcha.
It's not a hollow argument at all. I've never been struck by a meteorite. And I'm fairly sure it won't happen tomorrow either. Not 100% certain, but certain enough that I'm not going to walk around inside an anti-meteor cage that might crush me just in case.
I was specifically speculating whether or not the presence of American guns is not a contributing reason for the relative peace. I was mentioning the 2nd Amendment in that context, but it was not the best point to even attempt to make, as it's purely speculative, probably unfairly giving credit to American military when other militaries are certainly relevant factors, and *shame* the mention of the 2nd Amendment in that context is stupid, as I'm speculating about national military might, but we're talking about personal firepower.
I admit that was a dumb argument, ill advised from the start.
My greater position has nothing to do with any political documents.
Best as I can tell, all you're doing is stating that you are being misinterpreted and you keep evading questions.Quote:
So long as you misrepresent me, I will clarify those misrepresentations. If you ask me a question, I will answer it.
Polish jews fought back in the Warsaw. Chinese students fought back on Tiananmen square. The Branch Davidans fought back in Waco. All with predictable result.Quote:
You've never addressed my concerns that humans are brutal and unpredictable, and that genocides happen almost constantly somewhere on Earth. You haven't addressed my concerns that your world view is perfectly ignorant of the cruel realities of what humans do to each other, especially when there's a power imbalance and cultural divide.
That is why I ask you for historic precedent. I don't think it is at all self evident that guns are at all effective in fighting back against... apparently not tyranny... whatever you want to call it. Bad government. I don't care.
Do you think, at the tippy top levels of poker, that players make "random" plays in any sense?
Not making informed bets and range changes on the fly. Not intentional changes to exploit a perceived weakness, but an actual random play as an important part of the strategy for the best players?
My gut says no, and I've argued as much in another online grotto. However, I'm not too certain that if we're getting into Nash equilibrium stuff and computer AI (not practical, but theoretical optimal) that I can so strongly rule out any "random" elements being vital to a top machine player.
Thoughts?
How can someone making conscious decisions ever do something that called be termed "actual random"?
The closest that you can get to it is to pretend to look at your cards but don't, and then treat them like whatever you want it to be. In which case, yes they do. Sometimes.
Oh that is a good point.
Said poop, never.
That was a good point. Almost.
You can't randomize your actions internally. People are notoriously shitty at generating randomness. Like if you ask someone to pick two random numbers between 1 and 10 they'll pick two that seem an equal distance like 3 and 7. That's the opposite of random. They're also horrible at recognizing randomness, because they expect it to be equally dispersed in the space, which it isn't. Our problem with doing these things is we're wired to see patterns, not the lack of patterns.
You can, however, randomize your actions using external cues, like the second hand on your watch, a dice, a coin, or whatever.
If I type "You have a right to defend yourself against tyranny" and the responses are post after post accusing me of saying the word "defeat" or "safe," then quite frankly, I don't think it's my fault that I'm being misunderstood.
If I say it is an inalienable human right to the means of lethal violence and the responses involve, "but guns kill." Well OK.
Lots of things kill. Yes, we're talking about guns, but if your position is to put a double standard on the lethality of one tool over another lethal tool, then I think it's fair to talk about that as pertains to the strength of your conviction.
Me questioning you about the depth of that double standard seems perfectly on topic of me determining how strongly you, personally, adhere to this moral you've asserted. Barely at all, it seems... OK. So that signifies to me that you're not making arguments based on any deep conviction, but on something else. If you can't or wont address that something else, that's your choice. However, the argument certainly appears to be a double standard the way you've presented it.
If I say that innocent until proven guilty is a solid moral foundation for jurisprudence, and you don't counter that, but persist in treating people like criminals when they have not done anything to warrant such, then again... I point to that dichotomy and ask what's really going on?
I look around the world and the universe and I see violence everywhere. From bottom to top. Any assertion that we're in this place of violence, but we have no right to our own means of violence is just such brazen and unvarnished wrongness that I can't understand the assertion as honest and in good faith.
When we can look around the world together and agree that humans, despite our strengths and greatness, are still brutal, savage, unpredictable creatures in certain places, at certain times... then how can you possibly assert that we've advanced as a species to the point where we can in any form of good faith say that we're any different that the rest of this violent place?
The tone in the rest of your post isn't really worth addressing.
Meteorites? What? Cages?
The relevant argument would be "I've never been hit by a meteorite, so no one should have the right to protect themselves from meteorites."
Whether or not you and I personally think a meteorite cage is silly, that shouldn't matter to anyone who doesn't.
The response I've given is you have no practical defense against tyranny today. Sure you have a right to defend yourself against it. My point is a gun does not allow you to do that in any meaningful way. And you seem to acknowledge that.
My response has been to question your use of the term "inalienable human right" as if owning a gun is on the same moral level as not being forced into slavery. I just don't agree there's anything near an equivalence there.
There's no double standard because I'm not advocating for the promotion of cancer or heroin or anything else that kills people. If I had said 'ban guns, but cancer fuck yeah!' you might have a point. All I said was 'ban guns'. I'm not addressing these other evils you keep bringing up here because that - for the last time - is not what the argument is about.
That signifies to me that you're not actually addressing the points and still trying to make the argument about something else, which now seems to revolve around questioning my motives, which are, in fact irrelevant to the question of gun control. And in any case, I have no ulterior motive here in discussing gun control; it's strictly a question of what is best for society.
No, it's a way you use to avoid the topic. I'm not advocating we be soft on cancer.
I've already answered this. I don't consider taking a gun away from someone treating them like a criminal, because that presumes they had a right to own a gun in the first place. The way I see it, it's no more a mistreatment of law abiding indviduals to make gun possession illegal than it is making heroin possession illegal. Rather, I consider it doing them a favour.
It's kind of hard to get my head around what your point is here. Something about 'we need guns to deal with a violent, dangerous world.' Presumably (and I don't want to put words in your mouth), this is to protect us from said world, or make us safer? But I think Oskar has already shown you that isn't what happens.
fyp
Well, this wasn't the point I was making, but I agree. If you ask me for a random number between 1 and 10, then me simply choosing a number isn't random. I need to bring in an outside influence. One way I could get a random number is to count how long it takes until a red car goes past, and then use the last number.Quote:
You can, however, randomize your actions using external cues, like the second hand on your watch, a dice, a coin, or whatever.
Not really. Is there a higher probability that there will be a red car after 14 seconds compared to 9 and 19?
It depends how busy the road is, I guess. If it's a three-lane motorway, then I agree we'll skew our answers towards lower numbers. But if it's a quiet ish road, say an average of one car every ten seconds, then this problem is eliminated and it is random.
You need a uniform distribution - i.e., equal probability of every outcome.
Picking the first event starting at 0 ensures that won't happen.
E.g., Assume you're trying to randomize between 1 and 10. You do your Ong red car thing. A car comes at 1 with some probability (p). Every time a car comes at 1 you stop and figure that's your random number. But what that means is you will have more 1s than 2-10s because another car could have come at 2, 3, 4, etc., but you're only counting the 1. And if no car comes at 1, but a car comes at 2 you stop, so you also have more 2s than 3-10s. And so on.
You have randomized the event but you haven't randomized how it gets assigned a value. You need to have an equal chance of starting at any number by, e.g., looking at the second hand on your watch as soon as a red car goes by and choosing the last digit - e.g., 48 seconds after 11.30 means your random number is 8.
But if you're going to do that you may as well dispense with the car and just look at your watch.
You can reduce the problem to what is probably negligible quantities but you'll never eliminate it. And you'll need a very low amount of cars to do that, like one every hour, at which point it'll probably be dark before you see a red one.
Maybe you can start a semi-randomness thread if you want to pursue this probabilistic folly.
I don't need to. I agree. People aren't just "bad" at randomising, they are incapable of it. We just discussed how outside influences are necessary. You can't just "think" of a random number.
What a waste of research. Who asks for a random number from a person and expects an actual random number? People who doesn't understand randomness.
Nailing down the "obvious" with data is one of the purposes of research.
Genetic evolution appears to happen randomly in random offspring. For all apparent purposes, even if we can't act randomly (upon which I wholeheartedly agree), the way we became what we are is through a vehicle primarily steered by randomness.
It's an interesting dynamic, at least.
Being able to be somewhat unpredictable is pretty much fundamental to our survival. This requires a degree of randomization.
If every time something that wanted to eat us saw us do X, they knew that Y and Z were going to come next, we'd never have got out of the savannah.
In fact there is an experiment that shows that people try to minimize their randomization when they're cooperating with a partner, and maximize it when they're competing against an opponent, a la Game Theory.
MMM, I promise I'm not trying to strawman you, and I don't try to evade questions but I need to condense it down to get to the core of what you're saying because you say a lot of things.
You seem to think there should be almost no restrictions on the sort of firearms you can legally own.
- Are you ok with the restrictions that are currently in place? Do you want less restrictions? Why, or why not.
You say it is an inalienable right. I don't think you have addressed why you think it is one. You say it's so you can defend yourself against tyranny, but not successfully? So you acknowledge that your chances of fighting a potential tyrannical US government with or without guns are simply different shades of zero, correct?
Here's my problem: you understand that children are dying as a direct result of lax gun laws, but you say it's worth it in the end because [...] <- I really don't know what that part is in your mind.
You're playing a trolley problem game on a national scale where on one track you have thousands of children and on the other track you have [...], and you jump on the lever to save [...], but what is it?
You also seem to take any suggestion of more restrictive gun laws as entering a slippery slope. I think of the current gun laws in the US as simply a point on a sliding scale. They are very restrictive if you look at the totality of available weapons. We see that countries that are a little more restrictive, but not totally so have managed to decrease their gun related deaths by a lot. You are saying that this increment on the sliding scale is worth a couple thousand children because of the potential benefits.
This isn't random behaviour.Quote:
Ever play a sport? Sometimes you move left, other times you fake left and then go right? That's randomizing.
There is no "semi-random". Something is either random or it isn't. It's binary as fuck.Quote:
We can do it in our behaviour, just semi-randomly rather than being fully randomized.
You're assuming "random" and "unpredictable" are synonyms. In a sense they can be, but only if by "unpredictable" you mean "impossible to predict", and not "very difficult to predict". There's the binary nature of randomness. Something that is difficult to predict is not random.Quote:
In fact there is an experiment that shows that people try to minimize their randomization when they're cooperating with a partner, and maximize it when they're competing against an opponent, a la Game Theory.
Try again Euclid.
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/F...es/node56.html
The set [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] has zero entropy
The set [1,2,4,6,12,22,34] has low entropy
The set [372, 18879, 53, 22903, 4190013] has high entropy
Fun puzzle: If you tied a rope tight around the Equator, then added a single metre of slack, would anybody notice it was longer?
I would. I added the slack, after all.
That response had moderate entropy.
How about if someone else added the slack - would you notice?
It'd be like 6" of the ground, anyway, right?
2 pi r -> 2 pi r + 1 m = 2 pi ( r + 1 m / (2 pi) )
which corresponds to a circle with the radius of Earth (in meters) + 0.159 m (about 6.25 inches)
You're going to invoke entropy as evidence of semi-randomness? Nice try, but nope. Entropy is a measure of thermal energy differential, the available thermal work in a system.
Randomness in thermodynamics emerges when we don't know all the variables. Physics treats events as random, with a distinct probability of happening, because it's convenient, for the same reason it's convenient to consider poker as random and play the probabilities, even though it is not random, it is instead based on the dealer's shuffle and the decisions of the players... non-random events. It's random in the sense it is impossible to predict... unless we know all the initial conditions and observe all relevant influences. In which case it's not random.
Randomness is not a matter of frame of reference. If I know the initial conditions and you don't, if I know precisely how the deck was shuffled and you don't, it's not a random event for you but not for me. It's a non-random event for us both. It just seems random to you because you lack information.
If those numbers represent the temperature of atoms in a closed system, then yes, you're right. What does this have to do with randomness? Are you suggesting that [1, 1, 1] is less random than [1, 2, 3]?Quote:
The set [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] has zero entropy
Sort of. But it's loose. Are you happy with "lacking information" as a definition of "random"? I'm not. A dice isn't random, it just seems so because we don't have all the information needed to predict the outcome with certainty. All we can do is predict the probability of the outcome, giving rise to the illusion of randomness.Quote:
...because they are.
tl;dr... randomness is an illusion.
Everything happens for a reason, nothing happens for no reason.
There are more forms of entropy than simply thermodynamic entropy
It comes up in information theory. FYI, Shannon Entropy
Alright, fair enough, but that doesn't detract from the point about randomness.
It emerges because of a lack of information. Nothing is truly random.
Isn't radioactive decay considered to be random?
Let's get real. There's a process that governs radioactive decay, we just aren't aware of it yet.
The only thing we have going for us really, is that we can mathematically define what a "random variable" is and work with that. Then we can say if we observe something that behaves like the model, that it, too is a random variable. Then we note that we have error bars on everything and codify all of that... and we can then have a test with a confidence interval that says whether or not something behaves in a random way.
Ong's point that the die roll isn't actually random is probably correct. If we actually knew the initial conditions and material properties of everything in play to arbitrary precision, then we could predict the final state of the die roll ahead of time.
The only thing that can intervene with this is QM, which is truly, statistically random, as defined above. I.e. we've defined what random looks like, and QM looks just right after bazillions of tests. Very large N.
Quantum effects don't manifest on the scale of a macroscopic die roll. So no randomness from physics applies.
QM is only as random as the dice.
The data are absolutely against this conclusion.
The reality is that any new physics must fit pre-existing data. The pre-existing data look exactly like perfect mathematical randomness. Whatever new physics illuminates the underlying process, it cannot change that the process manifests as randomness.
I mean I'm drifting into faith here. I don't think QM is a random realm, I just think there are a mind boggling quantity of variables, the vast majority of which we cannot even begin to measure, that it's the closest thing we have to randomness. Statistical analysis is the only way we can hope to understand it, for the same reason statistical analysis is a winning poker strategy. But if we *could* know all the variables, and *could* process them in a timeframe that doesn't involve us dying before we're done, then we can predict QM events.
But to say QM is random is also an act of faith. The only evidence is based on a lack of information.
In QM, the lack of information is quantifiable. We can rigorously account for the randomness associated with our lack of information.
When we do so, we find that our predictions are accurate to dozens of decimal places. That is true.
However... what we find is that the lack of information is baked into the physics. It's not that "we" don't know. It's that there is no mechanism in the universe by which that could be "known."
Electrons are indistinguishable. There is no physical meaning of saying "this electron" only "an electron" since you can't tell whether or not "this" electron was swapped for another one when you weren't looking. You can't tell if it decomposed then recomposed in the blink of an eye. You only know it's physical properties, which are exactly identical to any other electron.
So the physics has to reflect that "the universe doesn't know the difference between electrons," not just us. It's baked in as a principle... and it works to astounding precision.
And again... any new physics must be in line with pre-existing data, and the data shows that it isn't possible to know certain things in particle physics. That's not even invoking fourier Transform pairs or the position-momentum uncertainty.
There are many forms of quantifiable randomness in QM
Are you familiar with the "one electron" theory of the universe? Something along the lines of... every electron in the universe is the same electron, travelling through time. As crazy as it sounds, I'm under the impression it makes mathematical sense.
Anything with a googolplex of variables will look like "perfect mathematical randomness" to our puny minds.Quote:
The pre-existing data look exactly like perfect mathematical randomness.
I'm not talking about whether randomness exists in a metaphysical sense like 'God rolling dice' or whatever. I'm talking about randomness in terms of statistical entropy. This is not the same as thermodynamic entropy, it just borrows the term as a familiar word that means 'lack of order'.
Clearly such a quantity can be applied to things other than thermodynamics, and is a continuous variable (i.e. not 'on/off' as you suggest).Quote:
We thus look for a single quantity, which is a function of the p_i , that gives an appropriate measure of the randomness of a system.
If you flip a coin the result is slightly random inasmuch as you have p(.5) of guessing the outcome in advance - statistically this can be viewed as a system with low entropy.
If you roll a 6-sided die the result is more random as you have a p(.1667) of guessing the outcome - higher entropy.
And so on.
So yes, certain events can be "more random" than others statistically speaking.
In terms of behaviour, if you ask people to press a button with as little randomness as possible, they are pretty good. The variance of their timings is fairly low.
If you ask them to press a button in a random pattern, they increase the variance of their timings.
So yes, on some level, people can generate randomness, just nowhere near complete randomness.
Because it effectively is perfect randomness (assuming each variable is itself random). Or so close to it that it hardly matters.
The state of each individual variable might be a binary 0 or 1 (or it could have several levels, or it could be a continuous value between -infinity and + infinity). Adding those up is complex enough, but the number and magnitude of higher-order interactions (how variable A's outcome affects variable B, or how the combination of A and B outcomes affects C, or the combination of ABC on D, and so on up the chain, is like a googleplex raised to the googleplex worth of complexity. Imagine poking your nose into those data! I'm actually getting an erection just thinking about it.
This is where we disagree, on a philosophical level. It does matter. To accept randomness is to accept our intellectual limitations. To reject randomness is to strive for a better understanding, or at least to acknowledge that a better understanding exists.Quote:
Or so close to it that it hardly matters.
I can't believe randomness truly exists. That's the same as saying something happens for no reason, there is no process governing that event. If the universe is governed by randomness, how can it be stable?
These events aren't "more random", they are "more unlikely". Something would be "more random" in the context you're using that term if it is harder to predict. Both the coin and the die are easy to predict, in a statistical sense, assuming they are fair. An unbalanced dice is "more random" than a balanced one, despite both having the same number of potential outcomes.Quote:
So yes, certain events can be "more random" than others statistically speaking.
But I prefer "harder to predict", because randomness is an illusion.
In fact the balanced die is probably "more random" than the unbalanced one. Depends how you want to look at it. What is a successful prediction? One that accurately estimates the probability? Or one that is correct more often? If it's the former, then a balanced dice is the less random, but if it's the latter, an unbalanced dice will favour one outcome the most, and once we figure out what that outcome is, we can correctly predict the outcome more often, so that would end up being less random.
But it's not random, so it's not the right word.
I can believe it exists, at least on a quork level or whatever. True randomness is self-correcting, meaning it can easily be part of a larger, stable system because of regression to the mean. If you flip enough coins, you'll approach something extremely close to a 50% heads/tails split with an extremely high probability.
The sum of a number of highly random events can have very low randomness.
Maybe. Hope not though. I like games.