The name for the point where a probability changes

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I ran 100 blocks of 2000 flips. Each block started out with a total stake of 1000. By monitoring the running total after each bet for each flip I noted that the money-in-pocket never dropped more than about 20 or 30 points below the 1000 but gradually and steadily rose through the length of the test run.
During each block of 2000 flips, the money-in-pocket increased to a value of around 5000 by the end of the block.
In real betting terms though, it would take a heck of a long time to place 2000 bets. Still a $4000 profit for a day's work isn't too bad.Potentially the odds could have reached 2^2000:1I see your point about the possibility of going broke though. About 20 losses in a row would completely destroy your bank roll. I had it set up so that the program would stop if that happened. It didn't ever happen during the 100 sets. If you just treat the "0" and "00" as not winning and keep increasing the odds of the bet then it shouldn't make any difference whether the sequence isRRRR0RB or
RRRRRRBThe bet is still the same size.I will have to try a simultion of a roullette wheel to see how this works.PY

I'd be interested in your setup to see what I get from it.could you post the formulas or e-mail it to me? (I think I turned my e-mail on)

Look at the subtitle which you made here "the effect of probability...". It's bullshit. Causes have effects, probabilities have realizations. You are still arguing a strawman.I didn't say I needn't construct a logical argument, I said your reference to logical fallacies was meaningless. You didn't address the substance of my argument in your reference to fallacies.We don't have to know what result A would entail, for there to be a magic moment that defines result A from result B. Things can go one way or another, without our knowledge.We can know with more or less accuracy the probabilities involved, as was well shown by the doors example, in which you were wrong about the probabilities involved. Calculations of probabilities don't measure ignorance, they measure some objective reality. If it would measure knowledge then measuring a 1/100 chance, would mean we have less knowledge about it as when we measure a 1/10 chance, or something ridiculous as that.Of course everything you say is perfectly consistent with a deeply ingrained prejudice towards "cause and effect", right down to talking about the effect of a probability.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can be pretty sure by people's interest in money, that if it were true it would have been tried before, and all casino's would've gone broke. So it must mean that the randomness in your computer is different as the randomness in a roulettewheel.I think in a roulettewheel there may be many points of decision, while in your computer there may be just 1 or a few. That might explain the difference.So at a point of decision, a decision sets a route which makes it more easy for the next decision to take that route, but as the route breaks down through wear and tear, at some point it becomes unlikely that the same route is open. That would result in a prefence for the last outcome, and a preference for switching after many same decisions. So it would result in a fluctuating wave value for the averaged oucome.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

there you go making another logical fallacy.and yes, they do show your arguments to be invalid. I gave you not only specific reference to the fallacies involved, but also listed where your mistakes were with it. your turn to read back.and yes, getting the calculation wrong shows the real ability of probability. heh.but here you make another logical fallacy again here, and I want to make sure that you see it this time: false. they are unrelated, and this is the fallacy of the false analogy (click)in the case of cause and effect, every time the cause is experienced the effect is likewise experienced. in the case of probability and realization, every time the probability is experienced the result can be any of the {included} set or something else altogether ... or even nothing ... there is no direct link between the result and the precedent the way there is with cause and effect -- there is not even an indirect link between the two in most cases. does a coin-toss decide a football game or is it the action after it that is the deciding factor? and when the score is 35-0 what relevance has the coin-toss?the scientific bias towards cause and effect is due to the fact that you have that consistent direct link. with cause and effect every time you toss the coin it comes up heads, every time you choose a door the prize is behind it, everytime you roll the dice you get double 6's ... and whether you realize it or not, probability just doesn't make the grade, cut the mustard, or decide whether the cat in schroeder's schroedinger's bag is alive or dead.when {result A} happens you can say {result A} happened. false. all they measure is the amount of ignorance we have about the system. for there to be an objective reality to probability means that a result must happen. that patently is false. there are too many chaotic variables in the world for that to always hold up. false again. the amount of probability calculated is not a measure of the uncertainty of the calculation. the uncertainty is related to all the possible outcomes in all the possible systems is all the possible ways that it can be affected by outside perturbances.assumptions are always made in such calculations that {this set of possible outcomes} are the only ones that can happen. obviously false.the objective reality is that anything can happen. and no set of calculated probabilities can have any influence on what really happens. that 10th coin-toss can be heads as easily as tails even though the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is 1 in 1024. it can also be interupted in midflight by any number of totally unrelated events, and that is where the real world steps in to stop the game and in the process kill any possible objective reality involved in the toss.you also seem to attribute the outcome of {some? every?} probability event as an indication that a choice was made for us, that some supernatural power made the decision.there is no basis for this conclusion. this is assuming that we are the necessary outcome of all the events that have happened in the past. this is known as the post hoc ergo propter hoc or "Coincidental Correlation" fallacy (click)stuff happens.enjoy.{{fixed cat}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 08:51 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Oh so it's apparently a logical fallacy that science is prejudiced towards cause and effect. A fallacy that this prejudice could surpress knowledge about probability and realization. You are just making meaningless references to logical fallacies because your argument fails.Why if I would believe you I would believe that probabilities have effects, altough you paradoxically also argue that they don't have effects and therefore don't exist. And of course I'm supposed to think it all a coincedence that every argument you make is in line with prejudice towards "cause and effect".You are the one who was making the false calculations of probability, why even after I showed the solution to you, you failed to grasp it. Well never mind, but I think it strange that you now say I can't calculate probabilities. It is merely posing again, just like with the logical fallacies, all meaningless. First you measured your ignorance about the doors as 1/2, than later you measured your ignorance as 1/3. You were ignorant of your ignorance, and then you accurately measured your ignorance. Well sorry for calling you ignorant this way, but it is you who is asserting this ridiculous supposition of probability measuring ignorance (although it is a very widely accepted supposition within science, this is not something you came up with).I'm perfectly satisfied with any name for the point where a probability changes, I don't need a reference to a spiritual being to own the realization, decision, determination. It will be quite apparent when a name is in use, that there should be some owner to these events, and that resolves into a complex of identity issues, not neccessarily pointing to God, but not excluding God either.As I have repeatedly stated "cause and effect" and "probability and realization" are not the same. One pertains to the past, the other to the the future. You are arguing a strawman again when u say I argue them to be the same. Well perhaps you misunderstood, but I repeated it quite often, that one is in the future, the other in the past. Why this get's no mention in your restatement of my argument is beyond me. It is certainly very sloppy, at the least, and fairly annoying.Now you appear to champion decision outright, when you say anything can happen. You are correct, why even a universe can happen by decision. It can't happen by cause and effect, or at least that's what science indicates. The word they use for that is "uncaused cause". It is a cause, but... it is not a cause... it is not a cause.. but it is a cause... it is.... prejudice towards cause and effect. Completely embarassing IMO, the twists and turns that this prejudice creates. But when the fact is that something is 99 percent likely to happen, and 1 percent likely not to happen, the percentages are somehow of more significance then the fact that anything can happen. What's more you do not even recognize that point in which anything can happen, the decision, the realization, determination. I thought determination most clearly conveys that anything can happen, while still being neutral enough to not presuppose some brain or imagination for the determination. But you rather use the word event apparently, which is so generic word to convey absolutely nothing.Your "post hoc ergo propter" reference is also quite meaningless, since I never made that argument. It is a meaningless strawman.As said before, it is probably impossible to reason you out of your position, because it is too extreme, the gap to common knowledge about probability and determination too big.There are no adverse consequences to treating probabilities and realizations on them as real, there are no problems in common language where they are treated as real. It is however much problematic to not treat them as real, which is why your philosophy is not practiced at all. It's only use is in philsophy in which Cartesian "cause and effect" becomes the sole principle of reality. It doesn't get used in practice at all.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Heh. Now you are getting nasty.You did not show me the error in my calculation, I found it myself. I take this as your inability to show the problem. All you have stated is what you could have read; being able to actually show the error would indicate a greater understanding. Too late now eh?One error does not make everything else an error -- another howling logical fallacy. You can apologize anytime for that insinuation, but I won't hold my breath based on past experience. it is fascinating that the field of probability has been replete with errors throughout it's history (starting in the 16th century when it was first? identified), including the one I made as one of the most common ... and I expect to see further improvements in the knowledge of the field, valid improvements that stand up to mathematical proofs (a higher standard than scientific method because ... we are dealing with math and not science, and math is not objectively real).It is a logical fallacy that probability and cause and effect are in any way related, regardless of the calculations involved, the numbers of possibilities {included\excluded} or the levels of {known\unknown} ignorance about the system. I have established that fact, and you have failed to refute it (and do nothing but make more unfounded claims like this).Your statement that "It will be quite apparent when a name is in use, that there should be some owner to these events" is just one big whopping logical howler (it doesn't even make it to the level of a fallacy), for you have established no link between any result happening and any need for it to happen or purpose for it to happen or rational for it to happen. what you have made is a "logical construction" that goes {{if A is true ... (mumble mumble) ... therefore Q is true}} , there is no intermediate construction at all. all you have said is basically "o.m.g. -- look only one thing happened, it must be {{some owner to these events}} that caused it by some miracle, praise be to that grand high owner of all that is" -- a ridiculous conflation of hope with lack of fact and absence or reality.Your statement that "Your 'post hoc ergo propter' reference is also quite meaningless, since I never made that argument. It is a meaningless strawman" is another howler because not only have you stated it before, you just repeated it on your last post as noted above, and either you are lying or at best you are disingenuous in reviewing your own posting.Your statement that "it is probably impossible to reason you out of your position, because it is too extreme, the gap to common knowledge about probability and determination too big" might carry more weight if your position were even near the mainstream in the field of probability. As I pointed out, a college level introductory course to probability that forms the foundation for a number of disciplines at two widely respected universities makes no mention of "realize" or "realization" in the whole course, to say nothing of your conflating that "magic moment" with a supreme {{owner to these events}} -- and it also says that there are many kinds and levels of probability from discrete {the simple ones like your examples} to continuous {(the estimation of (PI) is interesting eh?) including problems with an "infinite tree" of possibilities (note to PurpleYouko on coin-tossing)}, to conditional probabilities {discrete and continuous} ... many different kinds of probabilities .... and nowhere does it discuss the "realization" of a result. Why is that? Do you have any idea?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yeah you did enable your email. I just checked.I will send you the program this evening when I get home. I don't have the program here.
It is written in a Microsoft Excel format with a VBA macro doing the calculations.Py

I can handle that. thanks.

Your way to go about enumerating every single last possible outcome, is a total waste of work, which is a very typical way to go about it of people who don't know how to handle probabilities. That was also an error I sought to replace, by concise logic. What I am insinuating is that you fail to handle probabilities with any ease, so what, it's very difficult. It's just when you go accusing me of failing to understand, eventhough I provide a correct explanation that this needs to be pointed out. And no I did not read that explanation I provided anywhere.The way that probability and cause are related, is that a determination on a probability sets a cause which has the effects. Heads turns up, heads is a cause with effects. Determinism also means it has been decided, in it's definition. It traces back the decision at which the cause was set. So looking at the definitions of words, it seems quite old logic that a realization on a probability, sets a cause which has it's effect.All I'm intending to do is to express common knowledge, in a more formal way. It is not very likely that my opinion is not shared, not likely that you don't share my opinion in daily life, when you use the common knowledge. Now I have already 2 very fundamental disagreements about reality with evolutionists. One that probabilities are real, which evolutionists don't believe, two that comparisons aren't real, only exist in the mind, which evolutionists believe to be real. It is only because we agree in terms of common knowledge that I'm able to talk to evolutionists at all.You have not established any fact, you are just repeating things from your previous education that denies probabilities as real.What sycophantic fear you have of introducing God into science, that you simply discard any meaningful description of identity, a description that has the identity as the owner of decisions, altogether. I was merely observing the psychological phenomenon to attribute an owner to decisions, whoever that owner may be. Why for instance you own your decisions, no absolute need to refer to God for that. Of course the sole reason you don't tend to attribute an owner is because you incorrectly name the realization / determination, event, thereby losing the link to the fact that things can go one way or another, in the event.Again I never made such a "post hoc ergo propter" argument You are trying to fit me into a mould where other religionists might have gone, but I didn't go there.You have no point saying that the collegecourse doesn't mention realization, except if they use another word to name the point where a probability changes. The fact that they have no name for this point AT ALL, indicates that the subjectmatter is fundamentally underdeveloped in the collegecourse.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But the wavefunction evolves according to the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

sigh, more of same old blathering on while providing nothing new nor any refutation of points made. And yet it is also described in that college course (see specifically "probability tree") as the proper way?If you don't know all the possibilities, then you cannot calculate the probabilities, no matter how relevant they are (there is a Sherlock Holmes quote to this effeect ...). If you cannot build the proper structure of the model you don't understand the reality and your result is mistaken even if a guess based on them turns out correct. Whatever method you use to choose a door has no effect on the reality of which choice is correct. and yet you did not provide a correct explanation you just stated the end result. Failing to provide an explanation is evidence of failing to understand in my book. Your ability to understand is not shown. Sorry, Heads is an effect. It is only a cause of further effects at the moment it is itself an effect. Up to that moment it could be a {notHeads} of any sundry varieties, one of which is tails. Your pointless and unsubstantiated and unrelated blathering about "common knowledge" notwithstanding. You have yet to provide an "objective reality" example of probability in any shape or form. ROFLOL. This too is disengenuous of you ... "sychophantic" ... really? -- and just whom am I flattering and toading up to?I have no "fear" but I do have an objection to introducing any and all irrelevant concepts into a discussion of science. That means that what ever you want to include has to have a scientific basis, must be testable and observable. That is what science is, it is not made up of wishes and dreams. My own particular faith says that science is part of the way to understand the universe, rather than my faith being a part of science: I have no confict and no problem with my views, and no fear. I do not need to make something into something it is not. I certainly do not need to turn science into some mumbo jumbo involving supernatural elements making decisions while pretending to not invoke a god. Look up supernatural and look up god. I suggest you write some papers and submit them to the appropriate journals. I'm sure that the world of mathematics is just ripe for a complete overhaul in this area. Or the editors need a good laugh.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

There you go again.... talking about probabilities having no effect, as if it means something. That's about the 6th time you done this. Would you like to enter a moderated debate with me RAZD. So you can't bloody well repeat the same dullminded strawman over and over, without being called on it.I openly invite anyone to a moderated debate on the issue, as it is quite an important issue IMO, quite fundamental.For instance this prejudice towards cause and effect goes to explain the history of racist overtones of evolutionist descriptions of human behaviour. As they don't understand anything but a machine view of people, they are compelled to explain decisionmaking in terms of cause and effect, so what is called the spirit and the mind must be in the blood. Some go to argue that it is environmental cause and effect in stead, but this is more communist ideology, than it is a scientific proposition. The thing is that human behaviour is subject to decision, and since evolutionists do not know to name that point, the point where it goes from several possible outcomes, to an actual outcome, they are hellbent to ignore and deny it.Go read it back, I did provide an explanation, geez. Oh but I guess you are still busy enumerating every possibility on a sequence of 1000 cointosses, as that is the "proper" way to go about handling probabilities, according to you.The overhaul is to name the point where a probability changes. Well they already got one name for it, realization, but it does not convey the fact of things being able to turn out one way or another very well, and the name is relatively unknown among people in general, scientists included.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu, Once again you take what is the fundamental crux of the argument as a given. If things truly can go one way or another then probabilistic estimates may truly reflect reality, if not then they only represent our insufficient knowledge of the system.It might be a good thing for you to actually try and show that things can go one way or another if you want us all to accept it as a given. I don't see how you could possibly do it, but its the only way you can make your argument, as you are currently putting it forward, actually work.TTFN,WK

what I keep repeating is a point that you have yet to refute. it is very simple.if you want to get into who is repeating what endlessly, then I challenge anyone to go through the whole argument and see how many times you insist on repeating a claim without providing any substantiation for it. your position is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, repeated endlessly. as you do with every point in this post.sad.