Summations Only

Well you said it alright a day or so ago. Also used the bar fight analogy. Okay. What about 30, 40, 90 years old hearsay? Ah crap, I have to look the thing up again. There's at least one paper on it specifically. The trial was a type never done before. So much so, you could almost swear they made it up. I have a few sources on this other than one paper. I've read them all but damn it's a while now. If I find the time, I'll try and re-find them. If I can't it's because I can't remember where. Actually you were arguing to support they were very superstitious. So was I. Does that superstition not apply in some situations where it's not all that convenient for you?

Its not as bad of a claim as you're making it out to be.In a deterministic universe, even dice rolls are not random.If you could measure every single force that was acting on the die, then you could predict which side it would land on every time.Its just looks random to us because the we don't know those forces.

Sigh.Many people in the Bible were superstitious. I'm not avoiding that at all. But you are trying to make the claim that those ancient people (universally) don't meet modern standards with a sentence that lists a bunch of modern superstitions. Does that make the issue any clearer for you? From what source? A 50 year old cash register receipt is hearsay evidence that my mom purchased the stuff on the receipt. Is it admissible?

I used the accident analogy - I don't think NoNukes did.

It's clear to me. They don't meet modern standards by any means. Believing fortune telling, casting lots, astrology is superstitious. Most logical people do not accept that today. Most everyone did with the ancients. That isn't credible. Not to mention resurrection was not unusual. We have Lazarus, daughter Jairus, and all the saints when graves were open. It's a regular zombie fest. Then other gods were resurrecting as well. Well the source is the problem. Who knows the source, it's not known.
Unknown writing on a piece of paper is not a cash register receipt. And your Mom needs more than a receipt to prove SHE bought it. But I'd likely trust your mom and agree. The biblical, unknown, superstitious ancients with an agenda, copying and contradiction. Why trust that?

Sorry no nukes. My error.

I change my thought. If I ever think god is controlling how dice come up. I hope my wife commits me.
If I ever think god determines lottery winners, I'll commit myself.
If I ever figure out how to fine tune my muscles in my hand, time it with my eye, control each die and get rolls I like. I will call myself a cheater.Otherwise it's all random.

Forget god, I'm talking about the laws of physics. No, that's not what I'm talking about. Hell, have a robot do it.There are forces that act on the die that cause it to roll about and eventually land on one of its sides. If you could measure all those forces, then you could calculate which side it would land on. If the Universe is deterministic, then there is no such thing as randomness.Then, randomness only comes about with respect to something.Like, with respect to our knowledge, a dice roll is random.With respect to the laws of physics, it is not.Its easier to imaging with a coin flip as there's only two sides. But when you flip the coin, you exert forces on that coin that cause it to rise into the air and flip over some number of times.If you could measure all those forces, you could calculate which side it would land on.Like, if you applied a vertical force of 0.1 newtons to the coin at 20 mm from the center from a height of 1 meter, it will flip over 19 times before it lands in the sand. It started with the head facing upwards so therefore it will land with the tails side facing upwards.That coin flip would not be random but if you didn't know the above information then it would look random to you. Or, it would be random with respect to your knowledge.Even with evolution, random mutations are not truly random. They have actual causes. What they are, is random with respect to fitness.

Steady, a till receipt is objective evidence that goods were bought by someone (unless forged). Who bought it would need to be established. None of that is hearsay.

Cat Sci,
That is random. To the roller it's random.
If a guy could calculate every force on multiple die. It's still random.
It's random because it's an after the fact calculation.
You can only calculate forces after the die have left the hand and the die roller isn't exerting any influence by multiple unpredictable ways of the die roller.
It's random.

I explicitly stated that we could predict the die roll.If you know the forces beforehand, you can calculate how the die will behave.That makes it non-random.The only thing that makes the die roll look random, is our ignorance of the forces that make us unable to predict it.Unpredictability is not randomness.In reality, its not actually random. The die will follow the laws of physics and land how the forces tell it to. There is no random element to it at all.This isn't some nonsense that I'm making up, how familiar are you with determinism?

quote:

---

Randomness, as opposed to unpredictability, is an objective property. Determinists believe it is an objective fact that randomness does not in fact exist. Also, what appears random to one observer may not appear random to another. Consider two observers of a sequence of bits, when only one of whom has the cryptographic key needed to turn the sequence of bits into a readable message. For that observer the message is not random, but it is unpredictable for the other.

​

One of the intriguing aspects of random processes is that it is hard to know whether a process is truly random. An observer may suspect that there is some "key" that unlocks the message. This is one of the foundations of superstition, but also a motivation for discovery in science and mathematics.

​

Under the cosmological hypothesis of determinism, there is no randomness in the universe, only unpredictability, since there is only one possible outcome to all events in the universe. A follower of the narrow frequency interpretation of probability could assert that no event can be said to have probability, since there is only one universal outcome. Under the rival Bayesian interpretation of probability, there is no objection to using probabilities to represent a lack of complete knowledge of outcomes.

---

Randomness - Wikipedia That doesn't make any sense at all. Can you expound on that?

This is badly off-topic, but I think that noise I can hear is Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck and Schrdinger's cat turning in their graves. Don't you remember Einstein's remark about God not playing dice with the Universe?

Haven't you complained about people being overly pedantic in the past? Just saying.This is an argument of semantics. For all intents and purposes the roll of a dice can be referred to as random. But if you want to be a pedant on it and use the word in way that very few people would care about or know about, by all means continue on.Makes you look a little silly though.None of this is meant as an attack, just an observation.

I do. Apparently Golffly's never heard it.

Outside force. You can only calculate forces other than human.
A human is not a robot and can never repeatedly do the exact movement that allows predictability. Others forces may very well be.
The human factor is the one without predictability.
Hence, random.
And this is an absolutely absurd argument we are having. :-))))) Edited by Golffly, : spelling