Search In
• More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

## Recommended Posts

Mortukai, you are completely ignoring the statement of the problem. Yeah, any idiot can solve it with coins treated separately. However, the solution must be the same for when the two coins are treated as a single four-state system. You haven't even touched that. In a four-state system, information about one state has impact on other states, as it has been clearly demonstrated with cards. Now construct a proof for two coins that treats them as a four-state system and not two two-state systems.

Mathematical models are used particularly in the natural sciences and engineering disciplines (such as physics, biology, and electrical engineering) but also in the social sciences (such as economics, sociology and political science); physicists, engineers, computer scientists, and economists use mathematical models most extensively.

And to further quote you: Idiot.

##### Share on other sites

And to further quote you: Idiot.

Obviously you didn't realise there were three different links there, with two of them talking specifically about mathetmatical probability models of precisely the type we are discussing.

f*cking noob.

However, the solution must be the same for when the two coins are treated as a single four-state system. You haven't even touched that. In a four-state system, information about one state has impact on other states, as it has been clearly demonstrated with cards. Now construct a proof for two coins that treats them as a four-state system and not two two-state systems.

No, you f*cking retard. The only thing that has been clearly demonstrated is your continual failure to move past your initial post in this topic. Why the f*ck do you even bother to continue posting? All you do is repeat the same mantra over and over and over without ever contributing anything to further the discussion.

Seriously, not once have you even come close to suggesting why the "paradox" in your opening post was faulty. Not once. You keep hinting that maybe you "might get it", but that you "can't quite put [your] finger on it", but you end up with your dick in your hands every time.

The coins do not work the same as the cards. The cards have a completely different make-up. Each card can be one of four suits, which can be further grouped into two colours. Each coin has only two sides. When you say that the suit of the card is not one option, you are very clearly stating that there are only three options left. When you say that one coin is not one option, you are saying absolutely f*cking nothing about the other coin.

ABSOLUTELY f*ckING NOTHING.

They are independant events.

They are f*ckING INDEPENDANT EVENTS.

Here's a four-state system which completely denies your stupid bullsh*t argument:

I have four different coloured balls: Green, Red, White, and Blue.

I put them in a bag, shake it, and pull out one at random. I tell you what color it is. Then I put it back.

Now you have to guess what color the next ball I pull out will be.

Oh crap, looks like information you recieve about independant events in a four-state system is COMPLETELY f*ckING USELESS YOU DUMB c*nt. Yes, even in a four-state system. In any system where the events are independant, by their goddamn definition, information cannot have an impact on other simultaneous or future states. This is like, the definition of independant events. Like seriously, the very most basic bit of probability here, and you can't even grasp it. You're just so convinced that since there are four possible outcomes that somehow each outcome is to be treated like a unified disjoint possibility, influencing other outcomes. At no point does any component of your coin setup ever become disjoint.

I think the language barrier here has clouded the fact that K was trying to "pull one over" on us from the start. He failed because he didn't spell it out properly from the get-go.

Otter, the "language barrier" is called "Autism".

He didn't "pull one over on us", he lacks the sense of humor or personality to ever attempt such a thing. He didn't fail to trick us because of his language barrier either. He literally is a dumbass. He's trying to force order and predictability onto independant random events. When he can't, he percieves a "paradox", because he doesn't understand why it doesn't work like he wants it to. We both jump in and say "yo, it's because the other coin flip is independant man", and he spends many posts thereafter trying to obfuscate the issue to almost ridiculous levels, by changing the information given, implying systematic information, denying systematic information, grouping the coins into "different" and "same", ungrouping them in order to prevent any answer that would arise if they were grouped, attacking my card game for being too different, then using my card game to attack my arguments about the coin game....

He's confused. Hopelessly confused. He can't understand something, so he makes it way more complex than it needs to be and tries to drag everyone else into it with him, to prove that if he can't understand it, clearly no-one else can either. I mean, this dumb f*ck prides himself on his mathematic ability above all else. You've seen his posts. He tries to force maths into everything. He tries to explain things to people using forumulae when layman's descriptions are nearly always more than enough. He posts in every topic that could have a hint of maths in it, and he tries to portray that his understanding of the world is vast and flawless due to his percieved mastery of numbers. He seriously, seriously needs to be the top dog when it comes to maths. His whole identity depends on it.

But then he comes across a mathematical "problem" that he can't understand. And posts it here on the forums in the form of a "logical exercise to help with debating". And then you post the answer in the first post.

No, it CAN'T be that simple, because if it was, then surely K^2 would have thought of it, and by god, if he didn't think of it, then you must be wrong. Thus begins his tyrade of non-constructive posts, each one using anything he can to confuse and complicate the problem, trying to add layers of complexity and disinformation and all the things I've already mentioned. Not once has he ever made a single post which actually sheds light on the problem. Why? Because it would simply be "coin tosses are independant events, duh". And you've already said that, so he can never ever accept that as the truth, or it would rob him of his ego.

Honestly K^2, cut the crap. You're reaching for straws so hard lately it's getting pretty sad.

##### Share on other sites

This is somewhat unrelated, but I thought it was rather interesting in light of this discussion.

##### Share on other sites

This is somewhat unrelated, but I thought it was rather interesting in light of this discussion.

mhlc7peGlGg

Wow, that really explains a lot. Good deal. I will keep thi in mind

##### Share on other sites

Otter, the whole time I've been reading this I was thinking of the Monty Hall Problem. We explored it in one of my Psycho courses last semester. Very interesting.

##### Share on other sites

Well as Otter already mentioned the Monty Hall problem isn't really related to this coin "paradox" at all because the Monty Hall problem is disjoint, whereas the coins are independant. Think of it like this:

Independant:

Two coins are flipped, each can be either heads or tails. Both can be the same.

Three doors, each can contain either a car or a goat. All three doors could potentially be goats or cars.

Disjoint:

Two coins are flipped, each can be either heads or tails. If one is tails, then the other is heads every time. They can never be the same.

Three doors, each can contain either a car or a goat. Only one door can ever contain a car, the other two will always contain goats. There can never be more than one car.

___

A single coin flip is disjoint. It's a two state system.

The Monty Hall problem is disjoint. It's a three state system.

Two coin flips are independant events. Always.

##### Share on other sites

Oh yeah sure. Just the notion of a counterintuitive math puzzle is what sparked it I'm sure. But you should never end three sentences with sure.

##### Share on other sites

Mortukai, you really need to understand the fact that a two coin system is also a single four state system. Treating the coins as a two independent two state systems is trivial. I want to see you explain the probabilities when you treat two coins as a single four state system. I know that you have to get the same answer. However, telling me that the two state system gives the same answer and considering it a proof of a four state case is not sufficient. (It works, but it doesn't explain why the four-state approach presented fails.) You seem to think that the problem is trivial, so I want to see you construct a proof that does not treat two coins as two individual objects, but rather a single four-state object. Think of it as a single tetrahedral die that has TT, TH, HT, and HH marked on four of its sides.

##### Share on other sites

K^2, you really need to understand that two coins being flipped can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be disjoint.

Never.

Ever.

They are independant events.

Always and forever.

Two independant events can never ever be also simultaneously one single disjoint event. This is like saying something can be both black and white, or both existing and not existing. You are trying to claim that something can be two defined opposites simultaneously. So no, a two coin system is NOT also a single four state system. It's two independant events. Doesn't matter what system they are in, or if there are two or a billion, they are independant events.

Learn2probabilitybasics.

Now, if you'd like to propose a NEW problem, one where there is only one disjoint event which has four possible states, then propose a way of setting up the problem in a way which presents a paradox, then go for it.

But you can't use coins for that.

If you don't understand this, then you're in no position to be proposing anything. If you do, then fine, move on away from the coins, which you've clearly f*cked up on, and propose a new problem.

Edited by Mortukai

##### Share on other sites
This is like saying something can be both black and white, or both existing and not existing.

You should know better than to say something like this in an argument with a quantum physicist.

So no, a two coin system is NOT also a single four state system.

This is where you are absolutely mistaken. It seems that you refuse to take my word on it, so I recommend you drop by your math department, catch the first mathematics professor you can find, and ask him if there is a difference between two coins (or two flips of a single coin, for that matter) and a four-sided die. He will tell you, just like I am telling you now, that there is none.

##### Share on other sites

You should know better than to say something like this in an argument with a quantum physicist.

Uhuh. Well since I distinctly remember your first posts in this forum about quantum mechanics, where you claimed that consciousness was required to collapse a waveform, I think I'll take your "I'm a quantum phycisist" claim with a grain of salt. You may have studied a lot and done a lot of maths, but when it comes to actual application and in-depth understanding of what sh*t actually means outside of numbers on a screen, you fall short so, so often.

This is where you are absolutely mistaken. It seems that you refuse to take my word on it, so I recommend you drop by your math department, catch the first mathematics professor you can find, and ask him if there is a difference between two coins (or two flips of a single coin, for that matter) and a four-sided die. He will tell you, just like I am telling you now, that there is none.

Again, you prove your complete misunderstanding of things beyond numbers.

If you look at the probability for outcomes, sure, both yeild 4 possible outcomes with equal chances of occurance. So if that's what you're concerned with, then yes, for all intents and purposes, a 4-sided die and 2 coins amount to the same thing.

But that's like saying that a car and a helicopter are the same thing. Both will get you from A to B, and if both have a clear straight path to follow, both will do it in about the same amount of time. So if you're just concerned about arriving at B from A, then there's no difference between a car and a helicopter in this case.

But throw in traffic or heavy turbulent wind, and then you start to see the differences.

A car and a helicopter actually work completely differently. Independant and dependant events actually work completely differently. They are fundamentally different. Independant events have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of other events. Dependant events directly influence possible outcomes. It's a logical impossibility for both of these to be true about the same event. Impossible. Completely. Just because in a certain light they might appear the same, does not in any way shape or form mean that they are the same, or will appear the same in another light.

The fact that you just don't get this most basic and elementary aspect of probability seriously calls into question your actual efficacy and understanding of how things actually f*cking work. Pushing numbers around is NOT EQUAL to understanding what the numbers mean and represent and how and why they are being moved the way they are.

Seriously K^2, just take a moment to step back and look at this objectively and impartially. You are the only one having a problem with your coin paradox.

You are the only one.

No-one else here is having any difficulty with this. They all see and understand how independant events work. It makes sense to everyone here except you.

Now, this might not even matter, if you actually knew what the "paradox" really was, and we were all just mistaken because the answer is counter-intuitive, like the Monty Hall problem. In that case, we would all be wrong and you'd be able to teach us all something.

But that's not the case. You can't grasp what's going on, and everyone else can. You're just trying to convince everyone else that they don't really understand it, despite you yourself not being able to articulate why. You constantly try to force your paradox to be treated as a dependant event when it is so f*cking amazingly obvious that they are two independant events, and it's actually impossible for them to be dependant because they are two f*cking coins.

Honestly look at yourself. It's pathetic. You're trying to confuse everyone else because you are confused. You don't have the answer and everyone else does. Wake the f*ck up you stupid bitch. Until you can understand and articulate why we are all wrong and why you are right and tell us all what's actually happening to make us wrong and you right, then I suggest you just run along with your tail tucked between your legs. Every time you post trying to obfuscate the issue without ever once in the entire topic providing some advancement to further understanding, you prove that you are a dumb f*ck who can't tell your ass from your elbow.

Here are some things you can do to dig yourself out of the whole of stupid that you have dug for yourself:

-Design an actual dependant event with 4 states which is susceptible to your specific paradox.

-Prove that independant events can be dependant (lol).

-Provide a solution to your coin paradox which explains what is actually going on (similar to the solution to the Monty Hall problem).

-Shut the f*ck up and stop posting.

If you're not doing one of those 4 things, then trust me, you're just making a fool of yourself. Even when you think you're not, you are.

##### Share on other sites

Uhuh. Well since I distinctly remember your first posts in this forum about quantum mechanics, where you claimed that consciousness was required to collapse a waveform, I think I'll take your "I'm a quantum phycisist" claim with a grain of salt. You may have studied a lot and done a lot of maths, but when it comes to actual application and in-depth understanding of what sh*t actually means outside of numbers on a screen, you fall short so, so often.

Man, you get confused easily. An observer is required to observe a collapse of a wave function under Many World Interpretation. Not a conscious observer. A spin 1/2 particle will do. We just usually don't care about observations of non-conscious observers, and that has nothing to do with physics. Again, talk to someone who knows Physics if you don't believe me. Anyone who knows what Many World is all about will know this.

[Edit: Actually, here. Just read this. I doubt it will make much sense to you, but you should at least see that it says generally the same thing.]

I'm not going to even quote the rest. Pair of two-state systems is identical to a four-state system in every possible way. Not just similar. Mathematically identical. If you can't get that through your head, I can't help you.

And I'm far from being confused. I know the answer to the problem. The two-state approach is trivial. I just don't know how to construct a solid proof using a four-state system. Such proof must exist, because a two-state proof exists. Nothing more to it.

Again, if you can't understand such trivial things, I can't help you.

Edited by K^2

##### Share on other sites

Man, you get confused easily. An observer is required to observe a collapse of a wave function under Many World Interpretation. Not a conscious observer. A spin 1/2 particle will do. We just usually don't care about observations of non-conscious observers, and that has nothing to do with physics. Again, talk to someone who knows Physics if you don't believe me. Anyone who knows what Many World is all about will know this.

Oh I'm well aware of "observers" collapsing wavefunctions. Really, "observer" is a bit of a misnomer, because it really just means some form of interaction with another wavefunction.

But that's not what I'm talking about. If the search function worked in this forum, I'd find it, but I distinctly remember you posting about conscious observers collapsing wavefunctions, and myself, cerbera, and spoof all correcting you, and you remaining adamant that the observer had to be a conscious entity. I have no reason to make this up, this is just one of the things I remember about you first posting in these forums. As soon as the search function starts working again, I'll be able to prove it too.

I'm not going to even quote the rest. Pair of two-state systems is identical to a four-state system in every possible way. Not just similar. Mathematically identical. If you can't get that through your head, I can't help you.

Sure. You go on believing that. It clearly makes no difference if you have two decks of cards, where you remove one card from one and then one from the other, or if you have one deck of cards and you remove two cards in sequence.

Clearly you are the master of maths, we should all bow down to your overlordness.

Dumbass.

And I'm far from being confused. I know the answer to the problem. The two-state approach is trivial. I just don't know how to construct a solid proof using a four-state system. Such proof must exist, because a two-state proof exists. Nothing more to it.

So stupid.

##### Share on other sites

Just for the record, here is how the problem is properly solved as a single four-state system.

There are four possible outcomes, TT, TH, HT, and HH, each with 1/4 odds. In each state, the person who sees the coins can chose (presumably randomly) a coin to name. This results in 8 equally likely possibilities, written as: state - named coin, the other coin.

TT - T,T

TT - T,T

TH - T,H

TH - H,T

HT - H,T

HT - T,H

HH - H,H

HH - H,H

Each of these possibilities has 1/8 odds. If the named coin is H, this leaves us with four possibilities for which the states of the other coin are H(1/4), H(1/4), T(1/4), T(1/4) for the total of H and T being each 1/2. Exactly the same follows from the named coin being T. This tells you that regardless of what the person who views the coin tells you, you have equal chances of guessing H or T being the other coin. This is consistent with the treatment of each coin independently.

Furthermore, it is immediately clear why named coin being T removes the possibility of HH, yet does not alter the odds of guessing the other coin correctly. Besides removing both HH possibilities, TH - H,T and HT - H,T are also removed, leaving us with four equally likely possibilities, two of which have T as the other coin, and two others have H.

This treatment of the problem requires no assumption of any possible correlation, or lack thereof, between the two coins, beyond the guarantee that all four states of the four-state system are equally likely.

Oh I'm well aware of "observers" collapsing wavefunctions. Really, "observer" is a bit of a misnomer, because it really just means some form of interaction with another wavefunction.

No. Far from every interaction results in a collapse, and the observer must be unique. Interactions with other systems in observer's environment result in no collapse.

##### Share on other sites

Just for the record, here is how the problem is properly solved as a single four-state system.

Hahaha. Obviously, "Just for the record" means "I just figured this out just now despite not having a clue up until now but I'd like you to think I knew all along". I mean really, we're up to the 3rd page now and you only just now produce this? When it took Otter like, 1 post to show what a dumbass you are? You clearly are a mathemagical supergenius the likes of which the world has never seen!

Hahaha.

Furthermore, have you ever heard the term "unnecessary complexity"?

See, that whole thing you just wrote is pretty much precisely the same as the two independant events system, only unnecessarily complex. Occam's razor might suggest that you're being a bit of a tool. The real problem is like, pretty simple, and the solution is like, "two independant events, duh". But here you are trying to make it all way more complex in both the system and the solution.

Look at the f*cking system you knobstick.

It's two coins.

There's your first clue. Read that last line again if you missed it, because it's an important clue.

So you have two coins. What do you know about coins? Well, we know that they have 2 possible outcomes when flipped (ignoring the ridiculously improbable "landing on their side" outcome). We know that when you flip them multiple times in succession, previous outcomes have no influence on future outcomes. We also know that if you flip two coins at the same time, the outcome of one coin does not affect the outcome of the other, ever.

So bam, 50% probability for heads or tails for either coin.

Trivial, yes.

But far preferable to your bloated and inaccurate single 4-state system which is now apparently an 8-state system. Just so that you can come to the same conclusion.

Unecessary. And stupid. And inaccurate.

Honestly what the f*ck are you trying to prove by forcing a single 4-state (8-state) model onto a simple two 2-state system? Two coins. Two outcomes each. Not one coin which has 4 or 8 possible outcomes. Match the model to the system. f*ck, since when is a model supposed to be MORE COMPLEX than the thing it is modelling?? God, it's like I'm talking to a 2 year old. I get this feeling a lot when responding to you K^2. You seem to require that the most basic principles of thought and reason need to be spelled out to you a hundred times in a hundred ways and then you still don't get it because your brain is made of pudding.

This treatment of the problem has no actual relationship to the actual system upon which it is meant to be based, ie: the two coins, beyond the mere suggestion that "heads" and "tails" are possible outcomes.

Fixed.

No. Far from every interaction results in a collapse, and the observer must be unique. Interactions with other systems in observer's environment result in no collapse.

Yeah that's not entirely accurate but who cares? The point was that you used to claim that actual consciousness was required for something to be an observer. Honestly I'm lamenting the broken search function right now because I'd be laughing so hard as I quoted your words back to you claiming precisely this. I just can't for the life of me remember which possible topic it could have been posted in around 2 years ago or some sh*t, whenever you first arrived, and I couldn't be assed actually finding it manually. But by god, if they fix the search function....

##### Share on other sites

If only there was a reason why they never bothered to make the Search work. Like, maybe if there was an alternative search engine that doesn't take up forum's resources. Maybe if only Google could search on the GTAF, that would be great, wouldn't it?

Now how about you just [email protected]#\$% google it now, so that I can rub your face in it?

Yeah that's not entirely accurate but who cares?

I had tears in my eyes from laughing at that. I want to see you try to find something that isn't "entirely accurate" about that statement. I'm sure you have a much better theory that explains Quantum events than Quantum Mechanics, and I'd love to hear it.

See, that whole thing you just wrote is pretty much precisely the same as the two independant events system, only unnecessarily complex.

There is no "pretty much" about it, and that is exactly what was required to demonstrate. The four-state system must be identical to pair of two-state systems. Where have you been?

As for you trying to make it sound unnecessary, I haven't seen you coming anywhere close to providing a four-state solution, which was the only way to find the flaw in the 2/3 "proof" presented in the first post.

So you have two coins. What do you know about coins? Well, we know that they have 2 possible outcomes when flipped (ignoring the ridiculously improbable "landing on their side" outcome). We know that when you flip them multiple times in succession, previous outcomes have no influence on future outcomes. We also know that if you flip two coins at the same time, the outcome of one coin does not affect the outcome of the other, ever.

So bam, 50% probability for heads or tails for either coin.

Way to ignore the whole setting of the problem. With this approach, you'll get 1/2 with the Monty Hall problem. You have two doors. One of them is a car. You pick one at random, so you get 50/50 split. Learn the f*cking probability theory.

Mortukai, I suggest you go and take an IQ test. You obviously have no sense of logic, you can't keep track of more than one thing at once, and your pattern recognition abilities are lacking. I'd be surprised if you can scrape up the "barely above average" 120 points. That should give you some perspective on what you think about your mental abilities.

Edited by K^2

##### Share on other sites

If only there was a reason why they never bothered to make the Search work. Like, maybe if there was an alternative search engine that doesn't take up forum's resources. Maybe if only Google could search on the GTAF, that would be great, wouldn't it?

Now how about you just [email protected]#\$% google it now, so that I can rub your face in it?

ORLY?

Google has a "search (keywords) by (author) and (date posted) in (specific forum) function now does it? Damn, that's pretty neat. Cos like, the words "quantum mechanics, consciousness, K^2, moron" certainly wouldn't result in like, a billion matches on the GTAF.

I had tears in my eyes from laughing at that. I want to see you try to find something that isn't "entirely accurate" about that statement. I'm sure you have a much better theory that explains Quantum events than Quantum Mechanics, and I'd love to hear it.

You mean besides that fact that you haven't clarrified your terms? What constitutes an environment? What is "unique"? What are you calling a "system"? Just silly little things like that. Because you know, a dumbass like me could get the impression without any misinterpretation of your words, that wavefunctions only collapse when people who are not clones observe interactions happening outside their own minds between things which are not part of the same system. Like, a ball hitting a tennis raquet would collapse them, but water molecules bumping into each other wouldn't.

Without proper defining of your terms, your statement could be rather innaccurate.

Like, the whole reason "observer" used to cause you so much trouble, was because you had misunderstood the term to be more closely related to how we traditionally use the word "observe".

There is no "pretty much" about it, and that is exactly what was required to demonstrate. The four-state system must be identical to pair of two-state systems. Where have you been?

As for you trying to make it sound unnecessary, I haven't seen you coming anywhere close to providing a four-state solution, which was the only way to find the flaw in the 2/3 "proof" presented in the first post.

Really? That was the only way was it? You mean, without treating the two coins as a single four state system, I couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that I had 50% odds of guessing the other result? sh*t, how could Otter and I possibly have been right then?

Oh maybe because it's just two coins being flipped independantly.

Also, the four-state system certainly does not have to be identical to a pair of the two-state systems. That's complete bullsh*t. If you ran two overlapping Monty Hall problems, the 6-state system created would be completely different to the two 3-state systems.

Get this through your thick f*ckiing skull: Your 4-state system is an arbitrary construct. It has no bearing on reality. You are imposing it as a way of understanding a pair of 2-state systems. The entire problem with the "paradox" was one of your own creating when you assumed the 4-state system was veridical. When you see that it's not a 4-state system, the paradox disappears. You created the problem from your bullsh*t in the first place. And now you're all like "look, I've proved why this artificial problem is wrong using this other artificial method!". Good for you math-boy. Now go build a sand castle and kick it down, proving your undisputed reign over this universe.

Way to ignore the whole setting of the problem. With this approach, you'll get 1/2 with the Monty Hall problem. You have two doors. One of them is a car. You pick one at random, so you get 50/50 split. Learn the f*cking probability theory.

What? No. The Monty Hall problem is completely different nimwad. It's just a counterintuitive example, and it's only counterintuitive purely because of how people apply false models to the base problem. Kinda exactly like what you did here. You applied a false model to the problem and BAM, paradox!

Mortukai, I suggest you go and take an IQ test. You obviously have no sense of logic, you can't keep track of more than one thing at once, and your pattern recognition abilities are lacking. I'd be surprised if you can scrape up the "barely above average" 120 points. That should give you some perspective on what you think about your mental abilities.

Hahahahhahaa.

Yeah cos I've never taken an IQ test in my psychology degree. Except in that one subject called, umm.... what was it? Oh yeah, Intelligence and Personality Testing. Apparently I "barely scraped" 150 on the WEIS-III, technically making me "barely" a bonafide genius sitting in the top 0.02% of the population. I was totally held back by my performance intelligence (short-term memory, spacial reasoning, pattern recognition, etc), which was only a lot f*cking higher than my verbal intelligence, but that clearly doesn't say much because I can hardly string two words together coherently. This fact was thankfully re-affirmed with Raven's Progressive Matrices, where I only aced the test with 5 minutes to spare, but everyone knows Raven's Matrices is a crap pattern-recognition test because it's so harsh to females and it can't distinguish among the top 1% of males, so I'm just lumped into "better than 100% of the population" which is clearly not true, especially since it's so obvious that I'm such a dumbass. And who can forget all those years ago when I was entertaining the idea of becoming a doctor and sat the UMAT (undergraduate medical admissions test) and scored a paltry rating of 97% in logical reasoning, meaning that I'm SO DUMB that 3% of the people who sat that test... who were selected from the top 10% of the students in each school... just pissed all over my meagre logic skills.

sh*t K^2, you can see right through me! It's like you're a psychic, or you've been stalking me, or you're some kind of super-genius who just f*cking knows everything. Some might be impressed with my diagnosing you as autistic over an internet forum, but they'd be f*cking blown away with your guessing my exact IQ and pattern-recognition skills over the same forum! I should introduce you to all my psychologist friends! You could cut their workload in half!

Well, either that or they'd roll on the ground laughing their f*cking ases off.

Ok, I'm procrastinating at work now so I actually did just now do a google search for "quantum mechanics consciousness K^2 GTA". The only relevant result on the first page took me to here, where I found posts by you, K^2, claiming that wicca was real, that our brain held "amazing potential", and I quote: "Note that to this day, humans cannot build an artificial inteligence [sic] advanced enough to simulate even some of the simpliest [sic] of the mamals [sic], which have about 1000x less neurons. And there you are, standing there, telling me that you can tell us all what a human brain is not capable of?".

Man I wish I stumbled across that one when you were arguing that neural networks could "easily" simulate the human brain.

God I hope you still stand by your claim that Wicca is possibly real. That would make you even more of a stupid f*cking ass-clown.

Now if only I can find that elusive post of yours claiming observers need to be conscious entities. It seems you get dumber the more I remember things you've said.

Edited by Mortukai

##### Share on other sites

Mort, can you ever keep track of a single argument?

Recap time:

K - Here is a proof that gives you 2/3 odds of winning the game which is trivially 1/2 odds. What is the problem with the proof?

M - Coins are independent, and that gives you 1/2 odds.

K - That's trivial, but what's wrong with the proof that treats them as a single system.

M - You can't treat two coins as a single system. They are independent. Moron.

K - You can treat any pair of two-state systems as a single four-state system. Idiot.

M - Then you prove it with a four-state system.

K - Here is a proof with a four-state system.

M - This proof is totally unnecessary, and there is a trivial solution.

No sh*t, Sherlock. But a), I have already stated that the independent systems solution is trivial and that is how I know that the correct answer is 1/2 in the very first post. And b), the 'unnecessary' four-state solution is necessary to find the problem with the original "proof" presented in the first post. At any rate, you haven't demonstrated the flaw with the original proof without it, and I have demonstrated that the four-state treatment gives a correct solution if treated carefully. So what exactly are you still trying to prove? Can you really not keep track of such basic things?

And as side notes.

1) You should know better than using your top scores as an estimate of IQ. You don't want me to start claiming that I have well over 170 just because I have managed these scores a few times, do you?

2) I never claimed that anyone has came close to simulating human brain. I only claim that it will be possible in foreseeable future, and that simulations that can be done now are useful for establishing behavior of the real neuron nets. The statements you are trying to find in contradiction do not, in fact, contradict.

3) Every single law of physics that we know can be violated with a certain probability. There are ways to influence these probabilities, and I can quote dozens of experiments, both quantum and classical that do that. A human brain is extremely complex, as we have established, and trying to claim that there is no way that such a complex system can influence probabilities in one of these ways takes an especially deep burrowing of one's head up one's ass. Now, I have never seen any evidence that states that it can be done, so I'm not going to bet money on it, but Wica's beliefs are no more ridiculous than these of any other religion, nor are they more ridiculous than a blind belief that none of these things are physically possible.

4) You still don't have a clue how QM works. Give it up, and go back to your pseudo-sciences.

##### Share on other sites

Ok, you claim that a pair of two states is mathematically identical to a single four state. This is pretty much an integral part of your argument. In fact, without it, you're left with your dick in your hands.

So then it must also be true that three two state systems can be treated as a single 6 state system, and that 6 two state systems can be treated as a single 12 state system? Yes? And likewise moving away from 2-state bases, that a pair of 3 state systems is identical to a single 6 state system? Yes?

Well of course yes. If you disagree with that then your whole argument falls to pieces.

So then, pray tell, explain to me how two combined Monty Hall problems still yields the exact same "paradox" as a single instance.

Go.

What am I trying to prove? Easy. That your maths have to match the reality. Reality does not match the maths. Reality > Maths. [Reality[Maths]]. If reality is 2 independant coins, your maths better account for this if they hope to be accurate. When they don't, they become innacurate. Or at the very least, way more complex than is necessary. I mean sh*t, you ended up turning two coins into an 8-state system and a 3 page topic just to come up with the exact same answer you could have arrived at if you matched the math to reality.

I guess I should really be asking you, K^2, what is it that YOU are here to prove? Are you trying to prove that you have great difficulty understanding simple problems until you spend hours brute forcing an unnecessarily complex approach? Well, congrats. You did. Pat yourself on the back. Or are you trying to prove your mathematical genius? Because umm, that's not really happening much. Are you trying to prove that simple problems can be made more complex than they need to be if you look at them the wrong way? Well, yes, duh.

So I guess my answer to "what is the problem with the proof" is simple. You are treating a system as something it is not. So you get errors. This is pretty much precisely the problem with the Monty Hall Problem. People don't intuitively grasp that due to the guy revealing a goat every time, there is effectively only 2 states: a goat and a car, with a 66% chance of a goat and an 33% chance of a car. Once you understand the ramifications of the fact that the guy ALWAYS removes a goat from the equation, you can see as plain as day that if you have higher odds of picking one, and you want the other, then you should always swap.

I'm reminded of one of the smartest things I've ever heard regarding maths, from my physics lecturer when I took it as a minor for a year at uni. It was "Mathematical paradigms are only useful within the experimental regime that produced them". He was referring to the fact that QM equations can never produce large scale classical mechanical effects regardless of the number of measurements, rendering QM functionally useless at any meaningful scale. But the lesson in principle is universal. Match the math to the problem. Treat it like a 3 state system where one state is removed, and you assume falsely that you have even chances remaining of a goat or a car. Treat it like the 2-state 66% / 33% system that it really is, and there's no paradox.

Treat two coins like two coins, no paradox. Treat them like a 4-state system, and you get a paradox. Sure, maybe if you brute force it, you can "solve" the problem in both cases, but that's unnecessary complexity, and bad logic.

Which reminds, me, wasn't this whole topic supposedly about encouraging good logic? f*ck. You sure haven't been practising what you preach then. Brute forcing things is definitely not good logic. It's like counting groups of things by tallying each individual thing one at a time.

And as side notes:

1) What, in online tests? Lol. I highly doubt you've reached 170 "a few times" unless it was in online tests. There really aren't that many good and reputable IQ Tests. Those that are good and reputable highly correlate among each other and give consistent results. In fact, that's part of the requirements for a good test. Some specialise in certain types of intelligence, sure, but the day you get 170 in social reasoning and/or verbal intelligence tests is probably also the same day Jesus returns to earth as a chinese woman and becomes a nazi.

2) Ok now you're just playing with semantics to save face. There is far more to communication than mere words. The original tone and context and delivery of that quote were quite conclusively pointing towards the sheer absurdity of me claiming that Wicca is a load of retarded horse semen. You were highlighting the incredible complexity of the human brain by pointing out how immeasurably far we are from understanding even the brains of lesser animals. On the other hand, your later debate with me took quite the turn, and you were dramatically down-playing the complexity of the human brain and playing up the similarities and sophistication and accurate brain simulation of neural networks. Even as far as I went to point out the actual complexity of even a single neuron, you still claimed over and over that neural networks would solve all our problems and could easliy account for anything our brain does because it can all be boiled down to weighted responses. These are two polar positions. Don't play semantics with me cockface. Unlike you, I actually have a high verbal and social intelligence. Lack of semantic contradiction in no way implies anything about your stance on the issue. Politicians are masters of this.

3) No, it takes an especially deep burrying of ones head up ones ass to claim that due to the amazing complexity of our brain we may well have magic powers. Like people who claim to be furries (you know, "I'm really a wolf-dragon"), or vampires, or psychic, or some famous dead guy, or whatever. Sure, I'll grant you that if we accept "anything is possible" as an infallible truth, then of course such things exist within the realms of possibility, because the realms have no bounds.

I don't accept that bullsh*t. Most people don't. Even retards who believe in ghosts and magic dont' accept the possibility that Ra rides the sun across our sky every day in his golden chariot. But why not? If anything is possible, why draw the line at "I'm a wiccan"?

Call me a pigheaded and close-minded asshole, but I don't accept anything as true unless I see some convincing evidence for it, or have it on good account from someone I trust. I have my own standards for what "convincing" is, and so far, they are strict enough to keep wicca and vampires out. Put another way, I seriously doubt (in other words, lol, no f*cking way) that any wiccan has seen themselves or someone else turn someone into a frog. Or launch a fireball out of their ass. Or fly a broomstick or whatever it is that stupid people who believe in that sh*t think they can do. That's because no-one has seen that sh*t. That sh*t don't happen. Maybe in the distant future with sufficient technology, then that sh*t will happen, but it'll be for entirely different reasons and causes.

Put another way, if wicca can be true, having zero evidence to support it, just because "the possibility exists, despite being so stupidly close to zero as to bbe incomprehensible to any mortal", then likewise all of quantum mechanics can be completely bullsh*t with no bearing on reality at all.

I think the saddest thing I've ever seen, despite religious devotion to string theory, is when "quantum physicists" start believing in magic because they don't understand the basic logic of a wavefunction. Kinda like you. With your "if I'm staring at a decaying particle, then it won't decay because my observation of it doing nothing will prevent it from doing something" hilarious horsesh*t. Man, you're so dumb when it comes to the real sh*t. You just get lost in the numbers wandering around in your fantasy land like a little boy in a candy store.

4) I know enough to know that you're a dumbf*ck. If by "I don't have a clue", you mean "I haven't received a degree in it", then yeah duh. So what? I might as well boast "you don't know sh*t about human development". But what has that got to do with anything?. My expertise lies in numerous other areas, like art, music, and the nature of humanity. But I stay up-to-date enough. Enough to know when you f*ck up. That's enough for me.

Edited by Mortukai

##### Share on other sites

The odds are narrowed down, and you disreguardd all past odds once you step forward (or flip again). once you flip all odds leading up to that flip are useless...

Why? becase the flips are boolean, on or off. YES OR NO.

If the coins were 3 sided, then you WOULD count the last flip.

However each flip of the boolean allows you to hit that reset counter and start fresh with new numbers.

Of you take flips * coins = sides on one coin.

Flip Count * Coin Count = sides

Flip Count * Count * Sides = RESULT,,, your odds being 1 in RESULT of reaching any desired flip result...

...wow, i made a real brainfart on this thread didnt I..... I smell sh*t coming out of my ears...

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×