Out of Pod Experience

More games I see... and no evidence.




I don't know, the burden of proof is on you after all. You should tell me... but you will need some hard evidence or it is all just theoretical.

Ah I see... we are just right and we know it. Behold the math religion in all of it's glory.

We know that I've been able to generate 20.

So let's say I've just flipped 20 heads in a row. You'll admit that is possible. What are the odds that the next toss will be heads? 50/50. What's stopping that coin from landing on heads again? Randomness suggests that half the time I flip 20, I should get 21.

Half the time I flip 21, I should get 22.

Half the time I flip 22, I should get 23.

Half the time I flip 23, I should get 24.

Half the time I flip 24, I should get 25.

Do you disagree? If so, why? And where does it break down?

You're making a claim. Your claim is that at some point, the 50/50 coin flip ceases to be 50/50 and it is IMPOSSIBLE for that coin to land on heads again. I want to know where that is.

Given 100 throws, you CAN flip 100 heads. It's just improbable. No proof needed there.
Given 10 billion billion billion throws, you CAN flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row. It's just insanely improbable. Not impossible, but so unlikely it boggles the mind. No proof needed there either.

With each additional throw, that improbability decreases.
At some point, you reach a place where the improbable becomes probable, and at an even later point, the probable becomes ALMOST unavoidable.
No proof needed there either.

It's really simple.
Let's take N=10 to be a streak length you can't possibly deny it's impossible, because you have gotten it yourself quite a few times.

Whenever you get a streak of heads of length N=10, you have a 50% chance to throw an extra head.
For every 2 streaks of 10 heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of 11 heads.
For every 2 streaks of 11 heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of 12 heads.

For every 2 streaks of N heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of N+1 heads.
That is always valid, REGARDLESS of the value of N.

There's your impossible to refute logical proof up to any value of N.
If you want a practical proof, you have to restrict yourself to values of N that could realistically be attained in a reasonable amount of time.

For his next move, Eternum Praetorian will ask for proof that the red I see when I look at a certain patch of red paper is the same red he sees when he looks at the same patch of red paper.
Sheesh.

Want physical proof for 20 heads in a row ? Keep flipping those sets of 200 coins just 1 million more times and you will have your physical proof. It's there, you just need to check for yourself.

...

Answer these extremely simple questions:

1) For every 2 separate streaks of N heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of N+1 heads at the next flip - TRUE or FALSE ?
2) Is there a limit to the number of streaks of 10 heads in a row "given as much time as you want" ? And what is that limit ?

So you are denying that after a streak of N heads, there's a 50% chance that throw N+1 will be heads ?
And you call me a bad scientist ?
Laughable.

You're confusing "scientific theory" (a.k.a. "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment") with "scientific hypothesis" ("a testable but yet untested proposed explanation for a phenomenon").
Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.

Also, what's there to prove that an event that has a 50% chance of happening will on average happen 50% of the time ?
It kind of is its very freaking definition.
Or, you know, that, on average for 2 tosses, given a sufficiently large number of tosses, you get on average roughly one head and roughly one tail.

Again, WHAT is in your opinion the chance of flipping heads on a perfectly fair coin ?
Not a real coin, which is slightly biased, but a perfectly fair one.
Is it somehow magically NOT 50% at some point ?
And if so, at which exact point ?
And WHY ?

It's not a troll.




Physical proof of concept should not be to much to ask of anyone, let alone a self-proclaimed "scientist". You should not get so mad at the messenger, look to thy own self TBH. You cannot supply evidence to support your claim, this does not mean that your claim is wrong, but does mean that it is still only a theory.




Simple really, but I understand if your anger (or ego) prevents you from admitting to that fact. It is a common trait TBH that inquiring minds would best be served to do without.

In order t o fully address this question we would have to first answer the most basic question, does true randomness even exist? I mean, you keep coming up with these imaginary ideas (like infinity and an imaginary completely unbiased coin) but do they really even exist? In your imaginary world you can make anything do anything, but in the physical world it the reality of it might paint a different picture. That is why science requires observable proof.


That would req an entirely new thread.




This is practicing avoidance. Make it smaller? Making it the largest possible value and then go for it. Also, the above statement is worthy of the short bus, since the output would not have to be recorded. Only the "hit" would have to be recorded and the rest can be referenced in scientific notation. Duh?



But at least we have gotten to the meat of the issue here... you have no observable proof after all do you? I am a little suprised TBH, because I thought you did. Oh well.