|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th February 2011, 08:38 AM | #161 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
No. This is a very simple point that lies at the heart of your misunderstanding. As long as there is a non-zero chance for a particular outcome, whether it's a key being pressed, a coin landing up a certain way, or anything else, then that outcome is guaranteed to happen eventually given arbitrary time. This isn't up for debate, it's the very definition of non-zero probability. The only way a sequence can not be possible is if the system is set up so that at some point there is a probability of exactly zero involved.
The problem you seem to be having, as already noted several times, is that you're starting off with a system that is defined as always having a non-zero probability of every outcome, then arguing that at some point the probability magically changes to zero for no apparent reason. This argument simply doesn't make sense, especially since you've admitted to having absolutely no reason to think it is actually the case. It's a simple case of the null hypothesis and Occam's razor - there's no evidence it happens, so it's stupid to assume it does until such evidence is provided. |
25th February 2011, 08:13 PM | #162 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
That's right.
And in order for you to determine whether the very first phrase of your condition is accurate, you need to understand what the results-space of the physical system you're dealing with will be. You cannot simply decide that a given system has a non-zero chance for any particular outcome. You have to have a reason to reach that conclusion. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:16 PM | #163 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
No, I'm sorry, but explaining this principle is not the same thing as demonstrating that it applies in this case.
If you want to apply this logic, you have to demonstrate that there is a non-zero chance of this particular physical configuration producing a streak of 100 heads. And if you're talking about a human brain, arm, and hand, on Earth, in real time, then how in the world do you intend to demonstrate that? |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:23 PM | #164 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
|
|
25th February 2011, 08:24 PM | #165 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
Rather far off?
Compared to the odds of flipping 100 heads in a row? Not even close. In any case, your definition of "impossible" has done a 180, it seems. When it came to outlandish streaks, a thing which we would not expect to happen in longer than the age of the universe had to be deemed "possible", but now something which is decidedly unlikely cannot be called possible? And the ability to throw heads or tails at will is documented, so that's not out of the ballpark, either. There's also no contradiction in undetectable limits on randomness. Rig every slot in Vegas to never let any "wheel" run a streak of 100, and the Gaming Commission would never detect it. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:27 PM | #166 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:28 PM | #167 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:38 PM | #168 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
Regardless, I would still take my bet of my life against a Lotto jackpot that everyone on earth flipping coins for 10 years wouldn't come up with that streak.
1/2^100 is a hyper-astronomical number. To keep with the coin theme, if a coin were flipped every 10 seconds, I figure you'd have to flip it a little over 400 sextillion years before you'd made 2^100 flips. That's some 26 trillion times the age of the universe. And each person on earth would be facing the same odds. As for what stops the streak, I have no clue. I'm not saying any such thing exists. I do know you can easily design a system to do that and to have results indistinguishable from true randomness. So unless we can fully describe the system, then we don't know what the results-space looks like. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:40 PM | #169 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:41 PM | #170 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
25th February 2011, 08:48 PM | #171 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire. |
|
26th February 2011, 01:02 AM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
Why are you comparing them? Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that flipping 100 heads in a row is likely. We all accept that it's phenomenally unlikely, so what's your point?
I simply said that your excuse for how it becomes impossible is less likely to be true than not, so if we are to sit here and try to figure out if it is actually impossible, even at this first step it's looking more likely to be possible than not. But, as I said, even assuming that this unlikely thing is true, it still doesn't make streaks of 100 heads impossible.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
26th February 2011, 01:04 AM | #173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
26th February 2011, 01:05 AM | #174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
26th February 2011, 01:38 AM | #175 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
That bolded part is just wrong. Saying that 1 in 2^100 is non-zero is not 'an assertion'. It's mathematical fact. Having to demonstrate it happening in real life in order to prove that it's true is an arbitrary and unreasonable condition for you to apply.
Sheesh. When I originally chipped in to this thread I thought you were being misunderstood. |
26th February 2011, 02:20 AM | #176 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
|
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
26th February 2011, 02:26 AM | #177 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
|
100 heads is still a random sequence from a huge list of sequences, there's not enough ink on the planet, even if the oceans were all ink, to write down a list of all possible sequences of 100 tosses. To select a single sequence and ask if it's possible is like selecting any other of the possible sequences from the list and asking if they are possible.
Is there a better chance of a sequence occuring just because it looks more random to you? EDIT: There are more sequences in that list that look more random than ordered so the chances are that a sequence with a more random than ordered appearance will come up. |
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space. |
|
26th February 2011, 03:38 PM | #178 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
|
That's not true -- I recall further up the thread someone explaining where it comes from. To wit: every time the coin is tossed there is a non-zero probability that it will come up heads. That, together with the fact that each coin toss is an independent event, gives you a non-zero probability that a run of 100 heads will occur.
|
26th February 2011, 03:47 PM | #179 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
|
26th February 2011, 04:30 PM | #180 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
Have we agreed on what "impossible" means yet, or is that what we're really arguing over?
|
27th February 2011, 09:11 AM | #181 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
I agree with all of that.
But I don't see how it makes my position any less likely, because my position is not that someone flipping a coin will get 100 heads in a row, but rather that the probability of his getting 100 heads in a row is 1/2100. So all of that improbability (26 trillion times the age of the universe, etc.) is built into my position already. The question is not whether someone flipping a coin 100 times will or won't get 100 heads. He almost certainly won't. The question is whether the probability of getting 100 heads is 1/2100 or 0. All that's required for the the probability to be 1/2100 is that the coin be flipped fairly, which anyway everyone generally does assume is the case for normal coin flips. What's required for the probability to be 0 is that the coin, sometime before the hundredth flip, be wildly unfair. The latter seems much less likely to me than the former. |
27th February 2011, 09:25 AM | #182 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 11:22 AM | #183 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
This discussion reminds me of those statements that quantum theory allows for some object to suddenly pop up on Mars with a non zero probability (meaning some highly unlikely to the extreme probability). It's an interesting concept, that if quantum theory is utterly correct, must be true. Such statements may give us some perspective about quantum theory even though they are of little practical value. I think the same can be said of the probability of "100 consecutive heads."
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
27th February 2011, 12:15 PM | #184 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
|
|
27th February 2011, 12:49 PM | #185 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
It's not hard for me to see.
So given that fact, let me just ask you, why is it that there are innumerable combinations of sand grains on a beach which you would consider typical of what sand on a beach looks like, but if you were to walk out one day and find a perfectly regular pattern of sand, exactly smooth and arranged in neat rows and columns, this would catch your attention, to say the least? The answer is that perfect regularity is not the way this kind of system behaves on that scale, which puts it into a different class of result from the enormous number of other possible patterns which are typical of how it behaves. Ditto when you're using a radio dial. The space in between signals is characterized by its noisiness, and large-scale regularity and predictability -- whether that's a series of beeps or someone reciting the Declaration of Independence -- isn't characteristic of that system. Would static ever spontaneously arrange itself into the sound of someone reciting the Declaration of Independence? I seriously doubt it. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 12:52 PM | #186 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
Why are you still discussing that particular point with me? I've already conceded that.
What I'm discussing now is a different question: Is it impossible (not just extremely unlikely) that a human being flipping a coin is not perfectly random and will not actually produce all possible combinations of, say 100 flips, no matter how long it goes on? |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 12:54 PM | #187 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 12:55 PM | #188 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 01:00 PM | #189 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
You may have missed the part where the topic changed.
The question now is, what are the odds that a human flipping a coin, if it could go on indefinitely, would not in fact produce all possible combinations at any given scale? In other words, what are the odds that it is in some way biased in a way that would prevent extremely long streaks from happening? I happened to ask, in one post, if the odds were less than 1/2^100 because it's already established that even those long odds do not equal zero. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 01:02 PM | #190 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
27th February 2011, 01:44 PM | #191 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
|
I think the problem is that most people perceive one random looking sequence to be more like another random looking sequence than one that looks like it has some sort of order.
Out of the 2^100 possible sequences the vast majority look more random than ordered and therefore it's more likely that a random looking sequence will be thrown. I see it kind of like this: Say there are 20 (or 2^100) evenly matched horses in a race, all are black except one which is brown, it's most likely that a black horse will win even though not one of those black horses has a better or worse chance than the brown horse. So do you have a better chance by betting on a black horse? |
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space. |
|
27th February 2011, 04:18 PM | #192 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
|
To be honest, I don't even strictly need to guarantee independence of events, just that at each coin toss both sides have a non-zero probability of occurring. Doesn't matter whether it's a machine doing the flips or a human.
If you want to say otherwise, then either you've stopped talking about coins as we know them, or you mean something very different to the rest of us when you talk about a coin toss. |
27th February 2011, 05:40 PM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
I appologise, I thought you had conceded that it may be possible, but were continuing to argue that it may be impossible as well, and we simply can't tell either way.
I was making the argument that it cannot be impossible. If you have accepted that it is impossible, I'm sorry for belaboring that point.
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
28th February 2011, 12:33 AM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
Does what have a zero probability? That people getting tired causes coin flips to come up tails 100% of the time? That's not a probability question. It's simply not possible. The "messiness" of the world rules it out, necessarily, as the coin is affected by things other than the tiredness of the tosser.
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
28th February 2011, 12:36 AM | #195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
|
As I said earlier I'm happy to accept that the odds may be less than 1/2100 and that there could be things influencing the system that we are not aware of.
However, as I and others have pointed out, in order for the odds of any particular combination to equal exactly zero, the odds of some particular flip in some particular circumstance coming up with a particular result have to equal 100%. With a normal human executing a normal coin flip, I can't see that. Hell, even a trained coin flipper can make mistakes. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
28th February 2011, 04:58 AM | #196 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 814
|
Although the "new question" may look superficially similar to the original thread topic, it is a very different question - here you are using the word "odds" in a way that requires another interpretation of the whole concept of probability.
Q1. Is it impossible (P1=0) for a sequence of 100 heads to come up when a coin is fairly tossed 100 times? Q2. Is it impossible (P2=0) for "humans flipping coins" to be unfair in such a way that they are prevented from getting a sequence of 100 heads? The first question asks about a fair, random experiment, and makes it clear what constitutes a trial and what constitutes a success. It implies frequentist interpretation of probability P1, and in that context, it can be easily and clearly answered. (The answer is "no, the probability is very low, but non-zero".) The second question doesn't define any fair, random experiment. It isn't clear what constitutes a trial: are we somehow supposed to construct humans randomly (and what would still constitute "humans flipping coins"?) and analyze how often we may end up with humans unable to flip 100 heads in a row? That doesn't make any sense, and the question doesn't ask that anyway. It refers to a single scenario that's already been set up - existing humans either being prevented from flipping 100 heads in a row or not - and asks about the "probability" of the answer (which is already established but unknown to us) being this or that. The second question therefore intrinsicially implies Bayesian interpretation of probability P2 and it is a question of our belief or confidence in something that we can't know. Considering that results of real humans flipping coins are in principle affected by the entire observable universe (it's possible for a meteorite to fall nearby, shake the ground and alter the result; it's possible for a cosmic ray to strike a neuron controlling the arm and alter the result, etc.), the hypothesis that humans are prevented from flipping 100 heads is actually a statement about the entire observable universe being set up in a particular way that rules out humans flipping 100 heads. It would therefore seem that the upper bound of probability P2 (our confidence in this hypothesis) might be extremely low, dramatically lower than 2-100 (but let's not forget that probability P1=2-100 is a different kind of probability and the two can't be directly compared). Could we rule out the hypothesis altogether, though (P2=0)? It seems that we can't, because, after all, we could always be living in a virtual reality which was for some weird reasons set up to prevent flipping 100 heads. The answer to Q2 might therefore ultimately be the same as the answer to Q1 ("no, the probability is very low, but non-zero"), but it is important to note that the two probabilities P1 and P2 represent different concepts that cannot be directly mixed. |
28th February 2011, 03:52 PM | #197 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
It's not that, really. It's just that I can't tell you that there is not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance that real human beings flipping real coins would not somehow unconsciously kill the streak if it lasted long enough.
I can tell you that I find the notion pretty far-fetched. But I can't tell you that there's not some hyper-astronomical chance that it might actually turn out to be true. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
28th February 2011, 03:54 PM | #198 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
28th February 2011, 03:56 PM | #199 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
|
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
28th February 2011, 04:45 PM | #200 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
|
Write down any random looking sequence of 100 heads and tails, the exact same discussion as has gone on here would apply equally to that sequence as well as the 100 heads.
|
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|