haverbob

Yes it is, sorry about the lack of clarity. This has to do with the micro randomness working out to the seemingly non random macro. It's about assumptions we make. Here, in this case, this gentleman did nothing but add 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and divided by six, but then attempts to put it in a way that suggests 3.5 is the most likely outcome for a dice roll. That's where i pointed out, that I guess I should bet either 3 or 4 because 3.5 is between those 2 numbers. Crazy, isn't it?
Also, I know nothing about Zen or Buddhism. If some of the things I say parallel that stuff, then it is coincidental.

contracycle

No. the MEAN is 3.5. No actual roll will be 3.5

haverbob

Ugh. Thanks for restating the same thing in a different way. The truth is that all six sides of the dice have an equal chance. You cannot apply a "mean" theory to say that one number on a dice will eventually end up popping up more than another. The "mean" is pointless, but yet it was applied as to suggest the number that will come up the most. That was an error. If one number (or dice side) happens to come up more often, then that is a function of continually starting the dice in the same position and then throwing it with the same or similar force. That is now physics, not statistics.

Normal

It is amazing how a rational thinker like yourself can claim to understand seperate interpretations from common evidence as being rationally acceptable, yet the "god-interpretation" irrational. I'd have to hear a justification for this thinking before continuting any debate with you: that is, given similiar evidence, it is irrational to interpret a god existing as opposed to a god not existing.

Normal

I'll answer a few things because I assume people have similar questions.

I'm not asking to know "reality in itself" anymore then asking to know the orbits of planets is asking to know "reality in itself". Where exactly did I cross the line, and why should we rationally expect to stop knowing reality at that line you have laid out? That seems as fallacious as the god-hypothesis stopping science at a certain line.

Am I the one being dogmatic here, or are you? Evidence stictly implies a cause and effect relationship. You seem to be interchanging classical and modern definitions of words (such as evidence) to hide the fact that one completely supplants the other. When you see the cloud and it rains 99% of the time, it is probable that the cloud causes the rain, you have evidence of the cloud causing the rain. You use evidence to outline a cause and effect relationship.

Care to give some other "phenomena" that arn't based on singular particles (which are known already to be indeterministic)?

As I've said before using the Law of Large Numbers is a false analogy because it doesn't deal with causation at all, although you allude to the law throughout.

PJPSYCO

The problem with your premise is that you claim that we categorically deny your theory. The problem is that you have no theory. I have asked you again and again where you get your data. How is your god being denied? You have yet to say anything more than your god is what makes the world go around. Explain. This is any essay question. You have to state how you know what you know. I already said that I have looked at the data. I have used a number of the apparatuses involved in quantum analysis, and have seem most of the rest of it used (with full commentary by the operator of what they were doing, parts list, etc). The theories, and experiments do not support your premise of chaos. I gave a resource in my last post, I even gave HUP word for word. Uncertainty means an error value. The fuzziness is not an unknown, it is an inexactness. The benefit of things like the schrodinger theory of atomic orbitals is that it doesn't fail the HUP. The error value is insignificant. That is what HUP is for, it says how close you are. It says nothing about how electrons are chaotic. You have data they you won't talk about. Where did you get this data? What is this data? What apparatus was used? The theories must have experiments or they are just drivel. Your theory is drivel. Define your god, and it will be denied on it's own merits. Deus ex machina is more suited to Greek tragedies not science. In science we want something a bit less questionable (and by that I mean that I can ask you hundreds of questions about god).

Normal

My data is the same as your data.

PJPSYCO

And? As said, I have no data that implies your theory. Your conclusion seems pushed. The concept of god has not even been defined. Is it just the thing that makes the machinery go? Is it even a god? If you don't define a concept then no one has any concept to confirm. Just saying god does not specifically give that concept definition. You must define the concept for it to be checked. You just say that atheists are denying your idea. That's not true. Atheists have no idea to critique because you won't say what it is you are talking about. Putting the word god on to something will not make it a god either. You have to prove that it is a god by first saying what a god is. You've implied that your god is what causes things, but you won't explain how you know this. You just demand that we all accept it as truth. You are not the ultimate authority on the universe. Just because you make something up doesn't mean it is true. You have to support it with evidence.

haverbob

Just a small correction. He is not making anything up. If anything, maybe somebody else made it up for him. He is not making up this story of God. He gets it from a source. Nobody here is making up QM, they are getting it from a source.

HRG

IMHO you confuse the reason for inclusion the RAND function in your product ("randomness") with the reason why it turned out a certain number during a particular run of the program ("specific random result").

Similarly, the reason behind the randomness of quantum theory is the non-commutativity of observables in general; but this further implies that there is no reason for the outcome of a particular random event like radioactive decay,

Of course, unless you have access to a table of actual random numbers (e.g. gained from thermal fluctuations, or radioactive decay), your computer will produce pseudo-randoms (so there will be a reason for their value).

Regards,
HRG.