Lord Antares

By the way, I saw this post was posted by StringJunky yesterday. I thought he was making a joke. It stayed like that all night and now I see it was posted by H_I. You might want to check that out.

Ehh, this seems a bit...far-fetched to me. First of all, you don't seem to know that much about computers (I don't mean that in an insulting way) from reading your posts in another thread, so how could you have developed this? Or was it purely theoretical? Even so, there is no reason to give everyone a hand in shuffling. It isn't done in real poker and it would be more subject to bias than the standard method which you claim to be rigged. And that's another point. People keep talking about rigging casino-type games but it is well known (among reasonable people) that the safest way to run a casino is legitimately. It is pure probabilistic mathematics. It is actually one of the safest ways to make profit. There is no reason for fraud. Sorry to ask, but are you absolutely sure about this?

Yeah, I liked the previous design better too. I found it more intuitive and it looked more ''sciencey''. But I guess it could largely be a matter of habit. I'm just a bit confused in my first visit.

Even if that's the case (I'm ignorant about this), you're getting too hung up on it. What dictates the quality of the posts are the members. Good members won't suddenly get worse if the forum changes ownership. I originally registered on 3 science forums and copy pasted my threads on each one to see which one would yield better replies and I decided on this one. That's all that mattered to me. P.S. pressing enter once now skips two lines by default. You need to hold shift + enter to drop down one line. Just thought it might be handy to know.

This is legit. Also, some of Derren Brown's card tricks are really good.

All I see is a bunch of talk with no evidence. She is making stuff up as she goes along to fit her narrative. Of course, I could be wrong, but she would need to convince me. It's like if I recognized that men's clothes have less colour and then I inferred that this must be because women want to limit men in their choice. They want men to have less freedom over their clothing. Exactly the same thing. I just make it fit my narrative. I know you are. Those words are implied.

You are half right. I skimmed through everything and this contains no evidence and no concrete case. Certainly not enough to make any conclusion. Sounds like a shitty political agenda. But as long as it serves to take down the evil male pig, right?

This sounds like utter bollocks.

You mean all other things except for QM? And what do you mean by experiments? You are aware, are you not, that Newton's third law being true makes the solution true by default. It literally cannot be any other way. The coin cannot land in a way which does not correspond with exactly how it was flipped. It would violate many laws of physics. That just means that a pattern was not recognized; it does not necessarily mean anything else. OK, fair enough. I can get behind that. Since we do not know a particular mechanism, we cannot say with certainty that it isn't truly random. That's ok. But if you were to ask me, I think it would be much more reasonable to simply say that we have not discovered how it behaves yet. But I am not being asked.

Eh. I think the series is getting watered down a bit.

You don't.

From our perspective, yes. The same way that a coin flip guarantees uncertainty if you do not have the tools to calculate its motion. But we do know that a coin flip is not really random.

I do not propose anything except for the fact that assuming that quantum randomness is truly random is a large assertion. As far as we know (and have known mathematically for the longest time), there is no such thing as ''true randomness''. We can only give odds of randomness for things which we cannot predict. Since quantum behavior is one of those things which we cannot predict, it seems absurd to me that the default assumption should be that it is, in fact, truly random without a mechanism. Speaking from a mathematical point of view, randomness is a misnomer.

Why? Since absolutely everything else works in the opposite way and is a direct result of something calculable before it, why is that the assumption? It seems a bit absurd to me.

Well, yes, but as I said, it is a question if quantum uncertainty is uncertain because it is truly random, or because we don't recognize its pattern of randomness, thus making it random out of ignorance.

Why is that a criminal act? If your parents gave you a rich house and you were offered a ''high-ranking'' job, you would just sell your house and work in construction, right? Everyone who inherits money is an asshole by default, right? Don't get me wrong, I hate rich snobs. But being rich does not automatically make you an asshole. That's just envy speaking.

Still not as terrifying as the gejigeji...

It's just means to send a message. So if I were to tell you to ''inbox'' me on this site, I would mean ''PM me''. (send me a private message)

WIll you please read what I wrote? Yes, the universe is expanding, we know that, but that doesn't mean the big bang is ''happening continually''. That's a misuse of the term. You have no evidence for your contrary claims. And no, science doesn't claim it created the universe from nothing. It simply doesn't have a say in what was before the big bang.

You missed my point. Supernovae have nothing to do with the big bang; I was using an analogy to say why your point about the big bang doesn't really hold water. The same way why the explosion is just an instant in which something explodes and not everything that happens afterwards, the big bang is the name for the theoretized explosion of the singularity which is thought to have happened about 13 billion years ago. It does not make sense to say that the big bang is still happening because of that. We are seeing the aftermath of it. The debris, if you will. The big bang was an instant and these are the consequences of it. What you are seeing now is referred to as simply the expansion of the universe. As I understand it, you are also doubting the validity of the big bang theory. While this is healthy, you are in no position to do that. You quoted one person who disagrees with it and not the heaps of scientists who don't. The theory was constructed over years of research and accumulated evidence, you can't just come in and say ''nah, it doesn't sound right to me''. I understand that it is hard to believe that all of space sprang into existence from a singularity. It is hard for me to believe that the universe exists at all, but so it does. It is senseless to criticize a scientific theory without any evidence against it.

The big bang is just a name for the theoretical event which expanded a static singularity into space we know today. You're just using different words to say ''the universe is explanding'', which we already know. Yes, the expansion is a result of the big bang but there is no reason to call the expansion itself ''the big bang''. It's like saying a supernova exploded and years later, the debris flying through space is also called the explosion. No, the explosion is the event which started it and the debris is the result of it.

See what I said above + Manticore's engineering explanation. But if you want it explained simply with gravitation, it's simple as that.

I have a feeling he's asking something like this: ''if you have an old-school balance scale and put two objects of different masses on it, why does it go back to equal level once you remove them?'' Simply because, once you remove the objects, the weight on both sides is equal, so having nothing on the scale would be the same as having two objects of the same mass. Except, the force of gravity is weighing it down (equally on both sides), rather than a solid object. Forgive me if I misenterpreted your question, but this is how I understood it.

I see what you mean. This would be true only and only if there was an infinite number of possible minor outcomes and it's a good point. So we are agreed that, technically speaking, a perfect machine should be able to predict this with a probability of 1, even when QM is considered, right?