Out of Pod Experience

Want physical proof for N=2 ?
10*2*2^2=80
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=80&cur=60-usd.0050c
This should almost certainly contain a 2-heads streak.

Want physical proof for N=3 ?
10*3*2^3=240
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this TWO TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 3-heads streak.

Want physical proof for N=4 ?
10*4*2^4=640
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this FOUR TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 4-heads streak.

Want physical proof for N=5 ?
10*5*2^5=1,600
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this EIGHT TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 5-heads streak.

...

Want physical proof for N=10 ?
10*10*2^10=102,400
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this 512 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 10-heads streak.

...

Want physical proof for N=20 ?
10*20*2^20=209,715,200
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this 1,048,576 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 20-heads streak.

...

Want physical proof for N=30 ?
10*30*2^30=322,122,547,200
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this 1,610,612,736 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 30-heads streak.

...

Want physical proof for N=100 ?
10*100*2^100=1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376,000
http://www.random.org/coins/?num=200&cur=60-usd.0050c
Use this 6,338,253,001,141,147,007,483,516,026,880 TIMES and you should be almost certain to get a 100-heads streak.

...

There you go, there's my physical proof. Go verify it.

Of freaking course not 100% definite. When did I ever say otherwise ?

P.S. However, pretty damn CLOSE to 100% for practical intents and purposes.

Except that this exact answer was already hinted at even in the first page (after which the discussion deviated), and expressed in clear text by page two first, and repeated several times later during the course of this thread.
You have already acknowledged it yourself a couple of times, only to be "really surprised" every time it pops up again.

We've moved from "complete certainty at actual infinity, a point in time which can't actually exist" (which is a pointless debate to have with you) a very long time ago, many pages earlier to "good chance after a finite yet very inconvenient length of time" (which is statistics, a pretty thoroughly explored science that's still baffling for some people, like you).

It's you who keeps insisting that IT CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN.

Not that the chance of it happening is low in a certain fixed reasonable length of time (which could be correct).
But that it can't happen at all no matter how much time you give it (which is not correct).
You keep asking for physical proof ? Proof has been given. First post on the page. Feel free to verify.

Want me to quote some of the many places in which you said exactly that ?
I don't even need to go back in pages much to find such a claim made by you.

First post on this page. Physical proof. Go verify.


And if all people in the world and their descendants would keep flipping coins as much as possible until the solar system goes kablooey they still would have a minuscule chance of flipping 10 billion billion billion heads in a row, because there's simply not enough time to do enough flips for that to be likely.
Just like one person flipping coins during his lifetime would have a very slim chance of flipping 20 heads in a row. Yet have all the people in the world do it for a few generations, and somebody somewhere will almost certainly get those 20 heads in a row.


And if something it POSSIBLE it obviously can't be impossible.
It's a contradiction so clear I don't know how to express it any clearer than that.
Yet somehow you claim that something which you have yourself admitted IS at least theoretically possible will NEVER happen, no matter how much time you give it.
Which is absurd.

It's not counterintuitive, it's flat out wrong.

It implies your claimed randomness is NOT random.

In other words, you say that randomness does not really exist, and that the laws of probability break down at some arbitrary level you refuse to communicate.
Or in other words, that somehow, the universe itself suffers from the gambler's fallacy turned reality.

Assuming various shapes and sizes of explosives, assuming different initial arrangements of letters in the pile, assuming sufficient scrabble pieces, assuming a certain order of reading of the scattered letters, and assuming the letters would not be destroyed in the process ?
There's not enough time for that to be likely, but it is POSSIBLE. With such a tiny chance to be easily dismissed as PRACTICALLY impossible during a human lifetime. Heck, entire lifetime of the universe even would not even begin to make it even remotely likely.
But if you could be doing it enough times (many universes or whatever the heck you want to use to get enough tries), yes, yes you could.
Not certain, but starting from nearly impossible it can become quite likely.

As long as something is not PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how UNLIKELY one try might be to get what you want, if you do it enough times, it eventually becomes likely, and then almost unavoidable.
The more tries you make, the more likely it becomes.
It's never 0% likely, never 100% likely, always in between.
And how likely it is depends on how many times you do it.
You may need more tries that should be possible given the likely timespan for the existence of the universe, but if you COULD make enough tries, it will eventually become more likely to get it at least once than not get it at all.

You mean, a certain number of monkeys that can't actually exist setting a certain number of charges that can't actually exist beneath a certain number of mounds of scrabble pieces that can't actually exist eventually having a chance approaching but never actually reaching 100% of creating Hamlet at least once ? Yeah...

First of all... monkeys exploding their way to Shakespeare? ROFL! Don't be so quick to change the subject.








Secondly:

What is a fair coin? Is this another imaginary idea? Well, let us say that you can get one. Upon flipping it you have accidentally created a machine that will basically convert an incalculable amount of variables into either a heads or tails result. When it is flipped my hand will never be able to reproduce the exact height or force and further more the ground is not perfectly smooth. So the actual forces involved are far more complex then a simple 50:50 representation. That is a ultrasimplified principle designed to predict and outcome and it does so in great effect when the values are small.



The reality of a coin toss, i theory, is neither fair nor random. Each individual coin will have some tiny bias and supposedly the outcome is predetermined the moment that it leaves my finger. When it hits the ground, it is the shape of the floor and the bounce that it creates that sets it on a path that differs from my initial flip.


This gives the coin a new direction and the result will be independent of where it might of landed if the floor was perfectly smooth. The probability of a coin landing only heads or tails is 50:50 because it's shape is turning 360 degrees into a plane that must land on either side. This divides the multitude of variables that will yield either heads or tails directly in half. That creates the illusion of the 50:50 split.


The actual variables involved are far more numerous, perhaps so that they cannot be calculated. Theoretically these variables are forever changing and each one effects the coin. So the coin is being effected by forever changing forces that are acting upon it, making it fall "almost heads but not" and "almost tails but not" throughout the experiment. Since these forces 1. never repeat and 2. are always changing their effects on the coin are entirely unpredictable. But remember the coin acts like a machine that divides them up into a 50:50 representation.



So, the nature of the world beneath and around the coin is forever changing. It never repeats and it has a "simulated memory". It is not a real memory mind you, so don't get your panties in a ruffle just yet. It is only simulated. Think of the wind, it blows from a certain direction for a certain amount of time and then it stops. It blows harder and then softer, and then it blows from a different direction. These things take time.


This "time taken" creates the illusion of memory because the factors acting on the coin are now time dependent. In addition each time the coin hits the floor it may be changing the shape of the floor, or the balance of the coin, which further alters the variables involve and the change with each flip. So that too is time dependent. Time dependent variables = the illusion of memory.





The Result

The coin is not fair nor is it random. The universe does not have memory but it does have time dependent forces that can simulate memory and those forces directly alter the coin on an infinitesimal level. Those changes get translated into the coin which is a machine that coverts all of these variables into a 50:50 output and the end result is what you see.


When the values involved are small statistics as you know it predict the outcomes well, but when the values are much larger these tiny discrepancies can create unpredictable outcomes and that is why you need to prove your hypothesis when you say something like "you can roll ten billion heads in a row".


It is less likely to roll another heads because: (Blasphemy I know but meh)

This is also why it is less likely that you will flip another heads after you have flipped a number of them in a row. The external and time contingent forces acting on the coin are forever changing. So you are not just factoring in the pure random chance of the coin anymore you are now also taking into account the external and independent factors. So with each flip it becomes less and less likely that you will get another because of the external and time contingent forces that are forever changing.


The illusion of memory.

Hey, I am still on monkeys exploding their way to hamlet.
Imagine how I feel?

I don't think I need to do much convincing if I am taking a stance opposite to monkeys exploding their way to Hamlet. Do you?