4 ms·
This is a good illustration of a binary epistemology vs a continuous one. > It's always impossible to tell, for any given sequence, whether it was produced by
by sullyj3 4y ago
This is a good illustration of a binary epistemology vs a continuous one.
> It's always impossible to tell, for any given sequence, whether it was produced by a fair die.
Something like "you can't make any determination, because it's random".
Whereas under the second worldview you can make statements about how likely things are, despite uncertainty.
For some reason the binary worldview seems to be incredibly common. My sibling commenter exhibits the same issue.
- posix86 4y agoCould be. Though if you think long enough, with this worldview you can't decide anything, ever. And it's irrational. You can't say for sure which is random, but you can say for sure on which you should bet your money if you have to.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> you can make statements about how likely things are Sure. And it's true that some sequences are more likely than others to have been emitted by a random process. [Edit] All sequences from a random process are equally likely. It's still true that some sequences are more-likely to have come from non-random processes. The point is that randomness isn't a property of the sequence; it's a property of the process.