Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

Whoaa there, I must have hit your atheist button, hard.

I am as atheistic as they come, although there is no proof there is no god, that's something that can't be done.

Yes... I was not talking about you... I was talking about the ones who deny science and facts of reality (see this thread).

Yes determinism is falsifiable, but has it been falsified?

There is a whole thread debating this... start with this post which addresses precisely the above point.... but also read the rest of the thread.

I am sure you haven't provided one yet,

Not I... SCIENCE did... for over a century now... have you heard of something called Quantum Mechanics... or Nuclear Fission... or Luminescence... etc. etc.... but... if you wish to discuss that please read this post in an old thread and then this post in the new thread all about the topic... you can either revive the old thread or add to the new thread.

even coin flips can be argued to be deterministic, if you know the position, velocity and what not of the coin, you can determine the outcome.

Nope... you cannot.... see this post... and this post.... and of course read the rest of the thread.... start with this post because the thread is diverse.... but the topic of determinism pretty much starts there.

I am not saying the universe is deterministic, I am saying that question has not been answered yet.

Yes it has.... read this post in that thread and the rest of it.

I would like to know how you tell the difference between true randomness and the appearance of randomness.

Well... read this post... it explains it succinctly and very well.

There is an Einstein quote you may have heard.
And the retort from Bohr.

Yes...

Einstein and Bohr. Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

And I did not bring the religion, that's your fault.

This thread and Coin Clipper (V1, V2, V3) was in reply to this post in that thread I linked to many times above... so it is about the topic of randomness and indeterminism of the universe.

 

[Thermal]

Look at the running average. The more flips you do, the closer it gets to 50/50. This is exactly what smartcooky predicted. He even stipulated that it would not land on exactly 50/50. Which you and he were both wrong about, it seems.

Is...smartcooky in this thread?

 

[Leumas]

Look at the running average. The more flips you do, the closer it gets to 50/50. This is exactly what smartcooky predicted. He even stipulated that it would not land on exactly 50/50. Which you and he were both wrong about, it seems.

You clearly do not know what a probability distribution means... I suggest you look it up.

 

[theprestige]

Is...smartcooky in this thread?

My bad. Now corrected.

 

[theprestige]

Look at the running average. The more flips you do, the closer it gets to 50/50. This is exactly what smartcooky predicted. He even stipulated that it would not land on exactly 50/50. Which you and he were both wrong about, it seems.

Sorry, that should be acbytesla.

 

[Leumas]

Look at the running average. The more flips you do, the closer it gets to 50/50....

Is...smartcooky in this thread?

Have you tried Coin Flipper 3 yet?

It uses a set of TRUE RANDOM numbers generated by HARDWARE from a natural source of randomness (see this post)

Can you see a difference between its results and those of V2, or even V1?

If you cannot see any difference between the TRNG and the PRNG can you now see how PRNG can be a good simulation of the Randomness that is inherent in the natural world?

 

[theprestige]

You clearly do not know what a probability distribution means... I suggest you look it up.

You wrote a whole ass bog standard probability distribution engine just to prove that acbytesla was right about probability distributions.

 

[Leumas]

You wrote a whole ass bog standard probability distribution engine just to prove that acbytesla was right about probability distributions.

Yes... this is how SCIENCE works... which is another thing you evidently do not know much about.

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone...

ETA: Can you see a difference between Coin Flipper 3's results and those of V2, or even V1? If you cannot see any difference between the TRNG and the PRNG can you now see how PRNG can be a good simulation of the Randomness that is inherent in the natural world?

 

[Thermal]

Have you tried Coin Flipper 3 yet?

No. Why in gods name would I? Have you not caught on that I don't find this remotely intriguing?

It uses a set of TRUE RANDOM numbers generated by HARDWARE from a natural source of randomness (see this post)

Can you see a difference between its results and those of V2, or even V1?

If you cannot see any difference between the TRNG and the PRNG can you now see how PRNG can be a good simulation of the Randomness that is inherent in the natural world?

Your OP is in four short paragraphs. In the first, you quote psionlO making a general query about probability, and you say it inspired you to make an app.

In the second, you briefly explain it's features.

In the third, you make nonsensical claims which have been proven false.

In the fourth, you discuss the low performance processing speeds of your ancient personal devices.

To sum up: my interest here continues to be what the hell this is supposed to be about, and if you wouldn't mind getting on with it.

 

[Leumas]

.... a truly random generator would show hitting the 50/50 line many times each set. ...

And then you go on to show how V1 of Coin Flipper (the one with a PRNG) does exactly what you said above.

OP premise disproven. Took Less than a minute of mindless clicking.

ETA:apologies for poor quality screenshot. Seems that it doesn't like the size of the image although I've never had a problem before

And you rejoice that this disproves some STRAWMANNING "premise" that you misunderstood I was saying out of misreading a post of mine combined with not understanding what a probability distribution means.


But irrespective of your strawmnanning error.... do you now concede that V1 of Coin Flipper is as good as a "truly random generator"?? You said it and proved it... no???

And that was with V1 which is not as good as V2.... have you tried V2 yet??? Can you prove it is a "truly random generator" just as you did for V1???

And have you tried V3 which uses a TRNG?

Did you spot any difference between it and V2 or V1? If you do not then that means V1 and V2 are just as good as a TRNG... no?




.

 

[Thermal]

And then you go on to show how V1 of Coin Flipper (the one with a PRNG) does exactly what you said above.

Which you expressly denied it would do, in your OP and afterwards.

And you rejoice that this disproves some STRAWMANNING "premise" that you misunderstood I was saying out of misreading a post of mine combined with not understanding what a probability distribution means.

You didn't mention probability distribution in your OP flub. What you are doing now is called "moving the goalposts".

Your OP made one claim. It was comically wrong. Are you going to keep trying to change the subject?

But irrespective of your strawmnanning error.... do you now concede that V1 of Coin Flipper is as good as a "truly random generator"?? You said it and proved it... no???[/B

No. A random output would indeed hit 50/50 many times. So would a half-assed monkey app. The two are not exclusive. You are drawing a false inference. ]

And that was with V1 which is not as good as V2.... have you tried V2 yet??? Can you prove it is a "truly random generator" just as you did for V1???

And have you tried V3 which uses a TRNG?

Did you spot any difference between it and V2 or V1? If you do not then that means V1 and V2 are just as good as a TRNG... no?

No. You'll need to give me a good reason to waste another perfectly good click, seeing as you have been wasting time and refusing to deal with the demonstrated failure of the sole claim you made in the OP.

 

[Leumas]

Which you expressly denied it would do, in your OP and afterwards.

Nope... you expressly misread or misunderstood or both... and combined it with your lack of understanding of what a probability distribution means.

You didn't mention probability distribution in your OP flub. What you are doing now is called "moving the goalposts".

So an OP with an app developed to demonstrate randomness did not mention probability distribution and you think mentioning it to explain YOUR ERROS in understanding the OP is moving the goal posts.... wow

...in your OP flup...
...It was comically wrong. ...
...a half-assed monkey app.

Oh man... you keep giving me those effusive and emotional affirmations... can't thank you enough.




QED!!!

 

[Leumas]

@Leumus, Since you are having problems convincing others that your PRNG proves anything about random numbers in nature, I have uploaded a 16 K file of random bytes that I obtained from https://www.random.org/bytes/ for your use.

You won't be able to simulate 1,000,000,000 coin tosses with if but 65,536 bits should give you enough tosses to form a pattern.

In case you missed my posts thanking you....




I appreciate very much your link... I used it to make Coin Flipper 3 which uses the hardware-generated True Random data from atmospheric noise.

It helped verify that the PRNGs used in V1 and V2 were indeed pretty good and valid as an excellent demonstration of randomness and how randomness works.

And it also helped verify that randomness is inherent in the natural world and all REALITY as proven by science of course... but also as can be rationally and logically OBSERVED by anyone who does not have a PALL OF RELIGIOUS BENIGHTEDNESS securely draped over their eyes and mind and soul.

I hope you will get to play with all three apps and see if you can spot any difference in randomness between the PRNG versions and the TRNG one.


Thanks very much again...

 

[Leumas]

Yes determinism is falsifiable, but has it been falsified?
...

I am sure you haven't provided one yet....
....

I am not saying the universe is deterministic, I am saying that question has not been answered yet.
...

I would like to know how you tell the difference between true randomness and the appearance of randomness.

• Yes it has...
• Yes I have...
• Yes it has...
• Watch the 4 videos cited in this post... for one out of NUMEROUS ways.

 

[Leumas]

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone....

Watch the 4 videos cited in this post... for just one out of NEMROUS examples of randomness in the natural world.

Now can you see who is

... finding the idea of [in]determinism philosophically offensive... That's just your appeal to incredulity.

After watching those videos... I am sure you will still find scads of excuses for why it still does not

... convince me of randomness in a natural setting, for obvious reasons.

And thus irrefragably demonstrating who is the one with the

... a matter of faith for you.

ETA: all those UNFOUNDED and wrong criticisms and objections to the Coin Flipper app and you have not bothered to use it even once... hmmm... I wonder why?

 

[Leumas]

Have you tried Coin Flipper 3 yet?

No. Why in gods name would I? Have you not caught on that I don't find this remotely intriguing?

Yes... but you were intrigued enough to try to prove your imagined "premise" of mine, wrong... no???

Funnily you managed only to prove that even the least of the two PRNG apps is still as good as...

.... a truly random generator...

So thanks for your effort and time to prove my least of the three apps to be indeed intriguing.... despite you not finding it so, but still took the time to prove it wrong and only succeeded in proving it right.



QED!!!

 

[Thermal]

Yes... but you were intrigued enough to try to prove your imagined "premise" of mine, wrong... no???

No. I am truly baffled at how you could possibly not realize that your own app would behave as we have patiently predicted and you have vehemently denied that it would. So I figured I'd just have to show you, as the reasoning was going over your head.

My interest, as I have been repeating to you, is where you are going with your classical backdoor approach. You are trying to force an agreement from posters who pointedly do not agree with you. Usually you do this to try to "gotcha" some indirect conclusion.

Funnily you managed only to prove that even the least of the two PRNG apps is still as good as...

I proved that your claim in the OP was false, and your app did not produce the results you were confidently incorrect about. This weird trip you are on about whether your pseudo simulator is as good as true randomness is not interesting to me. I don't particularly care if it is or isn't, as either way it would prove nothing. Maybe it looks random, and maybe it doesn't. That means **** all about the nature of true randomness in nature or god or whatever the **** you're on about.

So thanks for your effort and time to prove my least of the three apps to be indeed intriguing.... despite you not finding it so, but still took the time to prove it wrong and only succeeded in proving it right.



QED!!!

Your continuing flat denial, while at the same time acknowledging that I was right, is fascinating in a duplicitous way. Kind of like a crack-fueled doublethink.

 

[Leumas]

No. I am truly baffled at how you could possibly not realize that your own app would behave as we have patiently predicted and you have vehemently denied that it would....

You are not intrigued to use the app... but you are exceedingly intrigued to carry on hurling effusive emotional abusive affirmations of how intrigued you are to prove it wrong.

QED!!!

 

[Thermal]

You are not intrigued to use the app... but you are exceedingly intrigued to carry on hurling effusive emotional abusive affirmations of how intrigued you are to prove it wrong.

QED!!!

Would you mind grabbing a pencil and taking notes, so that I don't have to keep repeating myself?

Your app, proud as you are of it, is useless to me. I'm only entertained for like a couple fake coin clips, and I get like really bored.

I'm interested in where you are going with it, though. I mean, Thermal loves you. You know Thermal loves you, man. You'll be going off about zombified sequined witches any minute now, and I'd like to be around when that particular pipe gets crackin.

 

[Leumas]

Would you mind grabbing a pencil and taking notes, so that I don't have to keep repeating myself?

Why... you already said you are not at all interested... so are you only interested in hurling abuses like the below... or like here and here... and here???

Your app, proud as you are of it, is useless to me. I'm only entertained for like a couple fake coin clips, and I get like really bored.

I'm interested in where you are going with it, though. I mean, Thermal loves you. You know Thermal loves you, man. You'll be going off about zombified sequined witches any minute now, and I'd like to be around when that particular pipe gets crackin.

Thanks again for the very intriguing incessant and relentless AFFIRMATION for the efficacy of the app.

QED!!!