Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 8:04 pm
You last visited January 16, 2017, 7:47 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

The Great Divide

Published:

Last Edited: October 10, 2005, 9:55 am

Morning blogsters:

Nice morning here.  There's a herd of scraggly wild horses runs around the mesas around here.  This morning they're near enough, and on mornings when all the animicules go into harmony they join the roosters, the coyotes, the llamas and the rovers for a concert of whinneying.  This is one of those mornings.

In a sense it's a lot like most of the really popular threads on LP.

Got me thinking about one of the fault line issues that frequently gets the opinions flowing on the threads.  LP users are divided into a couple of extremes, with a scattering of fence walkers and a few off in a pasture somewhere entirely else (Mystical Forum mostly), with the denominator being the issue of whether those balls behave randomly, and if so, whether there's any factor other than luck to improve the odds. 

My sense is that newcomers usually arrive at the site predisposed to one view or another.  They read the threads and discover somebody's been there before them, and gravitate toward others who hold that view.  A few will start a few threads with a flat-out statement trying to get a discussion going about some idea they have, which is usually met with a shrug by the older members who've been there before.  Others will merely add to a thread here and there with the statement, "It's all luck anyway," or some such explosion of originality.

But some of the more interesting discussions involve people who've been at this a long time, who have taken a run at whipping the system and didn't make it, or are in the business of trying to develop software with enough of an edge to win occasionally, but who actually hold the self-contradictory viewpoint that the system can't be beaten.  That it's all a statistical exercise.

The old-timers who began believing they could beat it and stayed long enough to convince themselves otherwise take it as a personal mission to persuade anyone who will listen that the system can't be beaten for this reason, or that.  For them, I suspect, there's a submerged anchor in the sand holding them where they are.  If someone came along and succeeded, it would be a negative affirmation... a statement that someone did something they tried to do and gave up too soon.

Over the months at LP I've often wondered why the group on the opinion extreme holding the belief the system can't be beaten continue to hang around.  That actually includes the beentheredonethat group carrying their personal mission to evangelical attempts to dash the aspirations of those who continue to believe it can be beaten.

Maybe the system can't be beaten.  That's one of the possibilities.  But there's a certainty in the equation.  If the system can be beaten, it will be beaten by someone who believes such things are possible. 

We live in a world surrounded by the impossible.  1950s vintage science fiction is filled with entire planets converted to computers with capabilities roughly equal to a laptop of 1999.  Somewhere they're cloning sheep.  Trinidad, CO, is a town filled with people in line to have themselves converted to a sex they weren't born into.  In 1905 physicists were still more-or-less certain the atom couldn't be split.  They'd have laughed at the idea of artificial moons, the internet.  The best minds of the time knew too much to believe such things could happen.

The fact is, science fiction of the early 19th Century doesn't include computers, television, sex changes, cloning.  3/4 century ago nobody'd even thought of the possibility of such things. 

Even as computer technology was aborning men with imagination, determination, and belief in believing were working in their garages and workshops to turn the information age upside down while IBM and other giants who hired men who knew best scoffed. 

Those garage and workshop believers are names everyone knows today, though they didn't teach us the fundamental fact about reality they, themselves once knew:  That you can't stop a man who knows he's right and keeps coming.  That the only way to discover the boundaries of human potential for discovery is to explore the boundaries personally, without regard for conventional wisdom and bland statements of what 'can't' be done by the people who 'know'....

Maybe those guys understood that the people who know came to their knowing by having been told by someone else who 'knew', and them believing it.  But the people who 'knew', somehow, weren't the one's who made the discoveries.  They were just the ones who sat on the sidelines and said it couldn't be done.

Strange life, unusual reality we've chosen for ourselves.

Jack

 

 

 

Entry #358

Comments

1.
jordi mareyComment by jordi marey - October 10, 2005, 10:42 am
as I am hoisted and sitting on the elevated sign of the great divide, what can I say, there are indeed periods of order in chaos as is evident in the mild decades of no category 4 and 5 storms. There are periods of order whereby certain digits will occur as predicted as attested to by some of the lp bloggers using their various methods and formulas. At least for a little while.

I shall now attempt to re-read your most recent Blog.
2.
Comment by Rip Snorter - October 10, 2005, 10:48 am
Thanks for the comment. Good luck on the re-reading.
Jack
3.
angelmComment by angelm - October 10, 2005, 11:07 am
enjoy reading your blog posts and looking at the wonderful pictures you post
4.
Comment by Rip Snorter - October 10, 2005, 11:12 am
Thanks for visiting angelm. Thanks also for the comment.
Good luck,
Jack
5.
four4meComment by four4me - October 10, 2005, 2:15 pm
rip wrote: The fact is, science fiction of the early 19th Century doesn't include computers, television, sex changes, cloning. 3/4 century ago nobody'd even thought of the possibility of such things.

I beg to differ computer basics date back hundreds of years.
computer stuff
http://www.eingang.org/Lecture/abacus.html

http://www.eingang.org/Lecture/forefathers.html

http://plus.maths.org/issue20/features/korner/

Tv is within the 75 yr time line
tv
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm

The sex change and cloning thing was explored also only not that long ago. I believe it was Hitler's people who tried and performed countless experiments to create the master rase. I also read or heard that one of the 12 apostles tried some experiments also he segregated men and women placing them in different groups. Miles apart from one another. He had hoped that some of the women in the group would grow male appendages and that the men would transform into female. Although his experiment backfired and the men and women never transformed they did however attempt to and did copulated. Much like placing all male or all female fish in separate tanks. In a short period of time some of the males would grow female parts and vice versa.

So I would like to say that in our history almost everything that one can imagine has been developed or is being developed. I can remember when someone said that Dick Tracy had a watch phone and that the technology would never be developed to achieve that. However the person that said that has been proven wrong as we now have digital phones that not only allow us to communicate they can send and receive pictures and such.

And while someone might create a program that might win a jackpot I doubt seriously if it will work more than once. However in many cases it's needs to only work once. Because of the randomness of ball drawings I doubt seriously that someone can create a working viable program.

However I do believe if a person had enough drawing history for a RNG type lottery they might find or create a program to crack the programing code and win more often using the same algorithm. And the bigger problem with that idea is in order to make a program like that work one would need to know which drawing used which program. If they change the chips or use different PC for each drawing then cracking the code would be an enormous undertaking since the person trying to crack the program would need to know that information.
6.
Comment by Rip Snorter - October 10, 2005, 2:30 pm
Thanks for the comment Four4me.

As I recall someone named Christine Jorgenson was the first sex change... sometime in the 50s or early 60s.

I also recall spending some nights with my ex-wife in a roomfull of computer about the size of the house I live in which spent a lot of hours doing less than I can do in a moment on the machine I'm typing on now. Punch cards, etc. A few years earlier I saw attempts at mobile comuters in the military with guys crawling around inside plugging and unplugging wires to program them to perform functions less complicated than a 1980 Kaypro could do with an 8 inch floppy drive and 32k of memory.

I recall Dick Tracy, also, and agree. But scientists, particularly physicists were declaring about this time a century ago that they had everything pretty well down pat, that now (then) it was just a matter of tying up the loose ends. That was probably about the same time the Wright brothers were putting together the first airplane in their bicycle shop.

I agree in general with most of what you're saying, except the assumption that we even know enough to imagine what's yet to be learned about almost everything, including randomness and numbers.

But the main place we part company is in the belief that those numbers are random, whether they're showing up from RNG machines, balls, or roulette wheels.

Thanks for the comment amigo. We'll agree to disagree on some things and no harm done.

Jack

7.
four4meComment by four4me - October 10, 2005, 4:56 pm
at's ok wit me. look i like numbers lottery related with a passion i go out of my way every day for the longest time trying to discern if there is a pattern or kaos. i have looked a spread sheets until i was numb from looking at them studied the history of every game i play took apart the numbers lined them up in ascending order descending order flipped em forwards and backwards. why on some occasions I even looked at up em upside down to see if they would jump right side up. And you know what I found out about all of this effort. I found out the numbers is numbers they go forwards as far as the can and backwards as far as they can.

Then I went out of my way to find out everything about the balls they use, the machines they are used in. I asked people that worked for the lottery about how the games were conducted ball selection machine selection pre draws after draws. Security measures. In fact what I am relating here is I have tried to find out about every aspect of the games in my state.

Having done all that and numerous other things to try and win the games. I found that big John was right when he says you don't hit the numbers the numbers hit you. What he is saying is it doesn't make a didly crap what you play what make a difference is if you picked the right numbers that hit. People have been trying for hundreds of years to beat they lottery. And in all this time have you ever read or heard of people whom for some reason have won so many times that the lottery had to stop selling tickets. NO. the lottery knows the odds of the game and the impossibility of someone coming up with a system to beat randomness.

like i said it might work once maybe twice but for it to work every time or even every other time would mean the game or drawing isn't random any more. That somehow the balls got a memory and desided to join in on a program adventure of a lifetime. Good luck.
8.
Comment by Rip Snorter - October 10, 2005, 6:05 pm
Four4me:
That's one of the things I like best about you amigo... you love the numbers. There are few enough of us around.
Thanks for the comment.
Jack

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.