Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 03:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 03:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Demonstrating that you don't understand probabilities Facepalm

If a random person showed us even a six sided dice, and rolled it a hundred times, rolling six each and every time. If we had a wager as to whether it was a weighted dice, or just a fluke, I'd bet on the weighted dice. The probability that I'd take your money is higher than the probability that you'd take mine.

He didn't imply it was a rigged dice. His example assumes a fair dice. The fact that you immediately assume the need to find another way to justify your answer of not accepting long odds as common occurrences, is amusing.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Where is my proof of the rock's unintent and the demonstration of an agent that can act intentionally upon the cosmos by the way?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 08:05 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 03:36 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Actually, I don't disagree with him on what to think about 100 natural 20s in a row, but my point was that (given unweighted dice, etc) flukes happen all the time, with exactly the probability that the laws of probability suggest, and don't require intervention. Every single one of those rolls was a 5% chance of occurring.

Of course if it's a fluke it wouldn't require intervention. It would negate weighted dice, or some form of intentional trickery. That's whats being implied when we say it was a fluke.

If the man rolling the dice figured out some way to throw it to where it would roll on 20 every time, or if the dice were weighted, it wouldn't be a fluke. The results were no accident, it was intentional.

But the observation of the dice rolls would look the same regardless of whether it was intentional or just a fluke. If it was a fluke, the dice would still have rolled 20s every time, if it was intentional it would have rolled 20s every time.

Dawkins Weasel Program is perhaps another example, while the program was setup to demonstrate natural selection. The selection of "I AM A WEASEL" wasn't a fluke. The algorithm was setup to run and eventually produce this. The outcome was inevitable, intentional, no accident at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 08:18 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
No, they wouldn't "look the same"; there are tests that can be run to demonstrate. That's exactly the point we've been trying to make. If someone asserts intent/cheating, there are proofs that can be done. We test the die, it comes back balanced. We watch cameras, and see nothing special/off about how it is thrown.

If you want to make an assertion of intent (someone weighted the die, or threw it in an extraordinary manner... a tough thing to do with a d20, since the angles are so shallow!) then it is on you to show that it was not normal physics at play.

They are not equivalent things. One is a positive assertion of intent or deliberate alteration; the other is the fundamental laws of physics that work consistently wherever we look.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2015, 08:21 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 03:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 03:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Demonstrating that you don't understand probabilities Facepalm

If a random person showed us even a six sided dice, and rolled it a hundred times, rolling six each and every time. If we had a wager as to whether it was a weighted dice, or just a fluke, I'd bet on the weighted dice. The probability that I'd take your money is higher than the probability that you'd take mine.

How did you calculate this probability?

If it was a fluke, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 0%

If it was weighted dice, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 100%
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But the observation of the dice rolls would look the same regardless of whether it was intentional or just a fluke. If it was a fluke, the dice would still have rolled 20s every time, if it was intentional it would have rolled 20s every time.

For a all we know, a world with a god would look the same as a world without a god, so why would you jump to the conclusion of god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Oh, and that's a very dishonest way to describe the "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" program set up by Dawkins to demonstrate cumulative selection, which it did just fine.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2015, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2015 08:34 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:21 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  How did you calculate this probability?

If it was a fluke, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 0%

If it was weighted dice, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 100%

Technically, the probability of tomasia winning the bet with unweighted dice is (1 / 20)*100, or about 0.7888609x10^-13.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2015, 08:36 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 08:30 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 08:21 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  How did you calculate this probability?

If it was a fluke, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 0%

If it was weighted dice, the probability of tomasia winning bet = 100%

Technically, the probability of tomasia winning the bet with unweighted dice is (1 / 20)*100, or about 0.7888609x10^-13.

My mistake, I thought that he was betting that you were cheating. my bad....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Nah, he's saying that since we can't test the dice (in his example) that there'd be no way to tell natural effect (physics) from intent (cheating by weighting or special-throwing the die), in an attempt (again!) to create rhetorical equalization of "intentionality" and "unintentionality" in his prior discussion. Except in both the natural world and in this example, we do test, and keep finding no examples of weighted dice, even though a great many people keep insisting that SOMEWHERE there's a weighted die (and even that the dice we tested are weighted, even though they were tested and found to be regular).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: