3 ms·

Two thoughts on this post/submission. The first is that it's really pretty shoddy, I mean why did it need to be filmed, why not a written (or even to camera) pi

by corin_ 15y ago

Two thoughts on this post/submission. The first is that it's really pretty shoddy, I mean why did it need to be filmed, why not a written (or even to camera) piece that just explains the logic. Anyone who doesn't believe it after having it explained isn't going to believe it after a video of an experiment that could so easily be edited to show 1000 heads out of 1000 flips. The second is, even if it was presented better, is this suitable for HN? Sure, the topic of probability is suitable, but this is on such a basic level that surely most, if not all, HN readers already comprehended it. That said, here's hoping that, if people are going to insist on upvoting it, it can at least spur some interesting discussion. With that aim, here's a tangeant: It's always interesting in gambling how, no matter how mathematically smart someone is, it's incredibly easy to let your heart make decisions for you when money is on the line. Whether it's betting red on roulette because it landed black 6 times in a row, or betting big on a blackjack hand because you've lost your last few in a row and surely it can't keep going. Even though, as you place the bet, you're thinking "I know the last X spins don't actually have any impact...", you can't help but feel the urge.

pbreit 15y ago
The video is definitely more engaging than text would have been. And I think it's a reasonable topic on HN. I knew some of it but certainly not all.
semanticist 15y ago
The video was visually similar to the set up that Derren Brown used in 'The System', which the video is making a direct reference to. The person making it is trying to show how 'lucky' or 'unlucky' Brown was when it took him nine hours to achieve the same result.
- corin_ 15y ago
  I haven't seen the other video so didn't know it was done similarly. However my feeling is that it still isn't that relevant. Trying to show how 'lucky' or 'unlucky'... He didn't really do that, did he? We know that it's possible to, on the first attempt, throw 10 heads in a row. Or it's also possible to not do that after 100 hours of trying. This video showed that it is possible to do it faster (be more 'lucky') than Derren Brown, but nothing about about the odds of when it might happen. I just feel that you could take out 95% of the video, expand on the areas covered quite a bit, and have something much more interesting.
blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
I like the philosophical implications of: if it is possible, with enough trials, it will happen. I remember using this argument against the proposed creationism view of my religion teacher. If it is possible for life to emerge on a planet, given enough time, it is bound to happen. Likewise: given enough games of Go, one game will end with a perfectly ordered black-white spiral. This then led to the tangent of: Is it possible for God to exist in our world? The same with the possible worlds model of modal logic. If something is possible, there is a world were such is the case. That could mean that, if time travel or travel between possible worlds is possible, there is a world out there, where they discovered this. They could travel between possible worlds and teach these other worlds how to travel too. As soon as something that crosses the boundaries between worlds is even remotely possible, in the end it should permeate through all possible worlds.
- derleth 15y ago
  > Is it possible for God to exist in our world? This isn't the same kind of question, assuming the Abrahamic conception of God, because that God is logically inconsistent. So, if the Abrahamic deity exists, reality is inconsistent, so what right do we even have to consider it reality? Therefore, the Abrahamic deity cannot exist in the real world. (Nope, no lightning bolts.)

by corin_ 15y ago

pbreit 15y ago

The video is definitely more engaging than text would have been. And I think it's a reasonable topic on HN. I knew some of it but certainly not all.

semanticist 15y ago

The video was visually similar to the set up that Derren Brown used in 'The System', which the video is making a direct reference to. The person making it is trying to show how 'lucky' or 'unlucky' Brown was when it took him nine hours to achieve the same result.

corin_ 15y ago
I haven't seen the other video so didn't know it was done similarly. However my feeling is that it still isn't that relevant. Trying to show how 'lucky' or 'unlucky'... He didn't really do that, did he? We know that it's possible to, on the first attempt, throw 10 heads in a row. Or it's also possible to not do that after 100 hours of trying. This video showed that it is possible to do it faster (be more 'lucky') than Derren Brown, but nothing about about the odds of when it might happen. I just feel that you could take out 95% of the video, expand on the areas covered quite a bit, and have something much more interesting.

blauwbilgorgel 15y ago

I like the philosophical implications of: if it is possible, with enough trials, it will happen. I remember using this argument against the proposed creationism view of my religion teacher. If it is possible for life to emerge on a planet, given enough time, it is bound to happen. Likewise: given enough games of Go, one game will end with a perfectly ordered black-white spiral. This then led to the tangent of: Is it possible for God to exist in our world? The same with the possible worlds model of modal logic. If something is possible, there is a world were such is the case. That could mean that, if time travel or travel between possible worlds is possible, there is a world out there, where they discovered this. They could travel between possible worlds and teach these other worlds how to travel too. As soon as something that crosses the boundaries between worlds is even remotely possible, in the end it should permeate through all possible worlds.

derleth 15y ago
> Is it possible for God to exist in our world? This isn't the same kind of question, assuming the Abrahamic conception of God, because that God is logically inconsistent. So, if the Abrahamic deity exists, reality is inconsistent, so what right do we even have to consider it reality? Therefore, the Abrahamic deity cannot exist in the real world. (Nope, no lightning bolts.)