Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 8:59 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Determinism vs Randomness and Chance

Topic closed. 72 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Stack47.

Page 1 of 5
PrintE-mailLink

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 21, 2011, 3:01 pm - IP Logged

This morning, while reading over my recent posts and the responses they have elicited, I came to the decision that it is a futile endeavor.  Why?  Because after doing a little research, I realize that the reason for much of the strife here over the issue of randomness goes much deeper than the lottery.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophy between those who abhor what I post here and myself.  My opponents have a much more deterministic view of the world than I do.  For example, RL-RANDOMLOGIC has read the Bible at least 40 times:

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222942/1844691

I have only read what was necessary to satisfy course requirements, most memorably, The Book of Ecclesiastes, which I enjoyed.  Religion for me provides perspective for the study of philosophy, sociology, and psychology.  Here are a couple of references with excerpts that help to explain why I have decided to stop "preaching!"

Randomness vs Determinism

http://pjmazumdar.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/randomness-vs-determinism/

"Determinism would seem to be seriously challenged by quantum theory, which has proved randomness in as far as quantum events are concerned. This is however rejected by determinative thinkers who hold that determinism still holds at the macroscopic level.  Thus a determinism adherent would hold for example that if we could have a sort of supercomputer, he would be able to predict every bubble in a wave or every toss of a coin.  So a determinism adherent would say that in a macroscopic case, say a billiard ball hitting the side of the table and bouncing back, we could predict exactly by knowing the angle at which the ball hits the table and its initial velocity, the resultant angle and velocity after hitting the table.

"But is this so? In fact, this is not really true and randomness still enters the picture. The path of the ball is not in fact totally predictable but has random fluctuations in its path, but these fluctuations are of a quantum proportion and therefore are not measured in macroscopic measurements."

Chance

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/chance.html

"The core idea of chance and indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some is simply an event without a cause, an uncaused cause or causa sui that starts a new causal chain. If we admit some uncaused causes, we can have an adequate causality without the physical necessity of strict determinism - which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future."

RL-RANDOMLOGIC's chances of convincing me that his Base-Ten-Digits Numerological System gives him an edge in the lottery are about as good as someone convincing a devout Catholic that they have irrefutable evidence that Gabriel was an apprentice carpenter to Joseph of Nazareth who was dismissed shortly after Joseph's wife became pregnant.

It's futile.  We must agree to disagree.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.  I hope the links above provide good sources for further investigation of these issues.

    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

    United States
    Member #59354
    March 13, 2008
    3972 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 21, 2011, 6:37 pm - IP Logged

    This morning, while reading over my recent posts and the responses they have elicited, I came to the decision that it is a futile endeavor.  Why?  Because after doing a little research, I realize that the reason for much of the strife here over the issue of randomness goes much deeper than the lottery.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophy between those who abhor what I post here and myself.  My opponents have a much more deterministic view of the world than I do.  For example, RL-RANDOMLOGIC has read the Bible at least 40 times:

    http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222942/1844691

    I have only read what was necessary to satisfy course requirements, most memorably, The Book of Ecclesiastes, which I enjoyed.  Religion for me provides perspective for the study of philosophy, sociology, and psychology.  Here are a couple of references with excerpts that help to explain why I have decided to stop "preaching!"

    Randomness vs Determinism

    http://pjmazumdar.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/randomness-vs-determinism/

    "Determinism would seem to be seriously challenged by quantum theory, which has proved randomness in as far as quantum events are concerned. This is however rejected by determinative thinkers who hold that determinism still holds at the macroscopic level.  Thus a determinism adherent would hold for example that if we could have a sort of supercomputer, he would be able to predict every bubble in a wave or every toss of a coin.  So a determinism adherent would say that in a macroscopic case, say a billiard ball hitting the side of the table and bouncing back, we could predict exactly by knowing the angle at which the ball hits the table and its initial velocity, the resultant angle and velocity after hitting the table.

    "But is this so? In fact, this is not really true and randomness still enters the picture. The path of the ball is not in fact totally predictable but has random fluctuations in its path, but these fluctuations are of a quantum proportion and therefore are not measured in macroscopic measurements."

    Chance

    http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/chance.html

    "The core idea of chance and indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some is simply an event without a cause, an uncaused cause or causa sui that starts a new causal chain. If we admit some uncaused causes, we can have an adequate causality without the physical necessity of strict determinism - which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future."

    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's chances of convincing me that his Base-Ten-Digits Numerological System gives him an edge in the lottery are about as good as someone convincing a devout Catholic that they have irrefutable evidence that Gabriel was an apprentice carpenter to Joseph of Nazareth who was dismissed shortly after Joseph's wife became pregnant.

    It's futile.  We must agree to disagree.

    --Jimmy4164

    P.S.  I hope the links above provide good sources for further investigation of these issues.

    Jimmy

    I wish you would have started here.  Einstein's quote "God does not play dice" was his dislike of quantum

    mechanics, he later must of had to rethink this statement but maybe he was not worng after all.  His work

    did however help quantum physics move foward.   At the macroscopic level randomness would be closer to

    chaos.  Lets say that you were a particle and everything that you understood functioned at the macroscopic

    level.  Would not the physical level seem a little strange to say the least.  Example, if I drop a rock it falls to

    the ground.  I think the quantum realm has perfect order and function but when looking at it from our

    perspective it's not easy to understand.  I think that quantum theory is the best modern description that

    could be given or used to explain God. 

    Think about it, from this level everything that exist came.  You may think that God is some sort of a super

    human or that he looks like Morgan freeman but I don't.  God is a Spirit and seems to operate at the

    macroscopic level.  Your attack on the father of Jesus is lame and you should have included the roman

    centurian rape hypothesis as well.   Thinking that you could wipe out the entire Christian faith with

    this little pebble, wow.  You see if you are using this to explain away the argument it won't work either.

    There are bible scholors that don't have a clue of what the bible is or how to use it.  Many who say they

    follow it's teachings have been indoctrinated by others that were also clueless.   Even those who put 

    the time in may never understand the mystries it contains. 

    I can say however that I agree to disagree.   

    RL

      RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

      United States
      Member #59354
      March 13, 2008
      3972 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 21, 2011, 6:50 pm - IP Logged

      PS

      The problem here is your insistance that you have all the correct answers and I think you do not.

      RL


        United States
        Member #93947
        July 10, 2010
        2180 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 21, 2011, 8:34 pm - IP Logged

        The problem here is RL-RANDOMLOGIC's insistance that he has all the correct answers.  I think he does not.

        Jimmy4164

        He also says,  "I can say however that I agree to disagree."

        And I say,"Agreed!"


          Avatar

          United States
          Member #105312
          January 29, 2011
          435 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 22, 2011, 9:32 am - IP Logged

          Jimmy4164:  You provide some interesting links.  Thanks.  But you included the hope those links would provide assistance investigating 'the issues'.

          The issues here are lottery draws and whatever lottery draw results testify about themselves.  How they apply, or don't apply to larger issues isn't a factor.  A scientist formulates theory based on evidence examined.  All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws.  Anyone can examine those draws and decide from them whether there is anything more to be learned from closer scrutiny.

          RL's statements about his system and his experiences are interesting, but the truth or fiction of them is only marginally important.  The people he's given the system to will learn soon enough.  Those he hasn't given the system to don't have any reason to care.  His posts are interesting only as a source of potential avenues for those who've examined the evidence provided by the draw results.  If the results led them to believe a way can be found to predict future draws they'll read RL's posts with interest.  Otherwise they'll find his posts uninteresting. 

          Your posts would be more interesting if you shared whatever you have examined and any new ideas that came to you as a result of those examinations.  General ideas and opinions not based on examination of evidence are sometimes interesting too, but can't contribute to a better understanding of the subject.

          Readers of RL's posts will decide for themselves what to believe about them.  They won't be influenced by the decision you've made about the posts unless you've attempted to replicate whatever his method is, tested it, and share your results. 

          RL might be lying.  Saying he is lying is rude and and might be a lie. 

          There is nothing for you and RL to agree or disagree about.

            Raven62's avatar - binary
            New Jersey
            United States
            Member #17843
            June 28, 2005
            49758 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 22, 2011, 2:09 pm - IP Logged

            This morning, while reading over my recent posts and the responses they have elicited, I came to the decision that it is a futile endeavor.  Why?  Because after doing a little research, I realize that the reason for much of the strife here over the issue of randomness goes much deeper than the lottery.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophy between those who abhor what I post here and myself.  My opponents have a much more deterministic view of the world than I do.  For example, RL-RANDOMLOGIC has read the Bible at least 40 times:

            http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222942/1844691

            I have only read what was necessary to satisfy course requirements, most memorably, The Book of Ecclesiastes, which I enjoyed.  Religion for me provides perspective for the study of philosophy, sociology, and psychology.  Here are a couple of references with excerpts that help to explain why I have decided to stop "preaching!"

            Randomness vs Determinism

            http://pjmazumdar.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/randomness-vs-determinism/

            "Determinism would seem to be seriously challenged by quantum theory, which has proved randomness in as far as quantum events are concerned. This is however rejected by determinative thinkers who hold that determinism still holds at the macroscopic level.  Thus a determinism adherent would hold for example that if we could have a sort of supercomputer, he would be able to predict every bubble in a wave or every toss of a coin.  So a determinism adherent would say that in a macroscopic case, say a billiard ball hitting the side of the table and bouncing back, we could predict exactly by knowing the angle at which the ball hits the table and its initial velocity, the resultant angle and velocity after hitting the table.

            "But is this so? In fact, this is not really true and randomness still enters the picture. The path of the ball is not in fact totally predictable but has random fluctuations in its path, but these fluctuations are of a quantum proportion and therefore are not measured in macroscopic measurements."

            Chance

            http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/chance.html

            "The core idea of chance and indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some is simply an event without a cause, an uncaused cause or causa sui that starts a new causal chain. If we admit some uncaused causes, we can have an adequate causality without the physical necessity of strict determinism - which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future."

            RL-RANDOMLOGIC's chances of convincing me that his Base-Ten-Digits Numerological System gives him an edge in the lottery are about as good as someone convincing a devout Catholic that they have irrefutable evidence that Gabriel was an apprentice carpenter to Joseph of Nazareth who was dismissed shortly after Joseph's wife became pregnant.

            It's futile.  We must agree to disagree.

            --Jimmy4164

            P.S.  I hope the links above provide good sources for further investigation of these issues.

            Indeterminism is the concept that events are not caused deterministically from prior events.

            Indeterminism is an event without a cause. An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

            Indeterminism is also closely related to the ideas of uncertainty and indeterminacy.

            Uncertainty is best known from Werner Heisenberg's principle in quantum mechanics. It states that the exact position and momentum of an atomic particle can only be known within certain limits. The product of the position error and the momentum error is equal to a multiple of Planck's constant.

            Indeterminism is important for the question of free will because strict determinism implies just one possible future. Indeterminism means that the future is unpredictable. Indeterminism allows alternative futures and the question becomes how actions in the one actual present are realized into other potential alternative futures based upon those actions.

            In their quest for knowledge, from antiquity to the present era, human beings have taken two different paths of inquiry:
            a) one involves knowledge "external to the individual" (the world, nature, the cosmos).
            b) the other involves knowledge within the individual (thought, emotions, perception of freedom, self-consciousness, etc.).

            Statistical Indeterminism: This final difficulty is already encountered when one seeks to determine the behavior of ping-pong balls moving in a container of gas. What one can do, in this case, is to approach the problem statistically, that is, one can study the "average behavior" of the ping-pong balls of the system. "Statistical mechanics" is the tool with which one can give exact information about the "probability" that a ping-pong ball is found in a certain region (exit chute) and with a  velocity in a certain range to navigate its way thru the exit chute. Thus, in the context of a deterministic classical mechanics, a certain "uncertainty" arises in the knowledge of the positions and velocities of the single ping-pong ball, an uncertainty of statistical nature due to the practical impossibility of a complete investigation and calculation. In this case, one speaks of "statistical indeterminism". What we succeed in determining, is only the probability that a ping-pong ball is found in a certain region or has a certain velocity in a certain range. The uncertainty emerges on the macroscopic level, whereas on the microscopic it is absent. In other words, there is a deterministic mechanics underlying the statistical uncertainty. It must be made clear that this type of uncertainty is not inherent in the laws of classical mechanics, which are deterministic, but stems from the intrinsic limits that define what the observer can know.

            A mind once stretched by a new idea never returns to its original dimensions!


              United States
              Member #93947
              July 10, 2010
              2180 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 22, 2011, 3:09 pm - IP Logged

              Indeterminism is the concept that events are not caused deterministically from prior events.

              Indeterminism is an event without a cause. An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.

              Indeterminism is also closely related to the ideas of uncertainty and indeterminacy.

              Uncertainty is best known from Werner Heisenberg's principle in quantum mechanics. It states that the exact position and momentum of an atomic particle can only be known within certain limits. The product of the position error and the momentum error is equal to a multiple of Planck's constant.

              Indeterminism is important for the question of free will because strict determinism implies just one possible future. Indeterminism means that the future is unpredictable. Indeterminism allows alternative futures and the question becomes how actions in the one actual present are realized into other potential alternative futures based upon those actions.

              In their quest for knowledge, from antiquity to the present era, human beings have taken two different paths of inquiry:
              a) one involves knowledge "external to the individual" (the world, nature, the cosmos).
              b) the other involves knowledge within the individual (thought, emotions, perception of freedom, self-consciousness, etc.).

              Statistical Indeterminism: This final difficulty is already encountered when one seeks to determine the behavior of ping-pong balls moving in a container of gas. What one can do, in this case, is to approach the problem statistically, that is, one can study the "average behavior" of the ping-pong balls of the system. "Statistical mechanics" is the tool with which one can give exact information about the "probability" that a ping-pong ball is found in a certain region (exit chute) and with a  velocity in a certain range to navigate its way thru the exit chute. Thus, in the context of a deterministic classical mechanics, a certain "uncertainty" arises in the knowledge of the positions and velocities of the single ping-pong ball, an uncertainty of statistical nature due to the practical impossibility of a complete investigation and calculation. In this case, one speaks of "statistical indeterminism". What we succeed in determining, is only the probability that a ping-pong ball is found in a certain region or has a certain velocity in a certain range. The uncertainty emerges on the macroscopic level, whereas on the microscopic it is absent. In other words, there is a deterministic mechanics underlying the statistical uncertainty. It must be made clear that this type of uncertainty is not inherent in the laws of classical mechanics, which are deterministic, but stems from the intrinsic limits that define what the observer can know.

              Raven62,

              This is a very well written post, with a much higher readability score than your typical piece.  Apparently, you want the readers here to believe you are the Information Philosopher, so you copy and paste from the website without attribution. 

              I would recommend that anyone interested in the above get it from whence it came.  I didn't read it through to determine if any modifications were made.

              http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/indeterminism.html

              --Jimmy4164


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 22, 2011, 3:39 pm - IP Logged

                Jimmy4164:  You provide some interesting links.  Thanks.  But you included the hope those links would provide assistance investigating 'the issues'.

                The issues here are lottery draws and whatever lottery draw results testify about themselves.  How they apply, or don't apply to larger issues isn't a factor.  A scientist formulates theory based on evidence examined.  All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws.  Anyone can examine those draws and decide from them whether there is anything more to be learned from closer scrutiny.

                RL's statements about his system and his experiences are interesting, but the truth or fiction of them is only marginally important.  The people he's given the system to will learn soon enough.  Those he hasn't given the system to don't have any reason to care.  His posts are interesting only as a source of potential avenues for those who've examined the evidence provided by the draw results.  If the results led them to believe a way can be found to predict future draws they'll read RL's posts with interest.  Otherwise they'll find his posts uninteresting. 

                Your posts would be more interesting if you shared whatever you have examined and any new ideas that came to you as a result of those examinations.  General ideas and opinions not based on examination of evidence are sometimes interesting too, but can't contribute to a better understanding of the subject.

                Readers of RL's posts will decide for themselves what to believe about them.  They won't be influenced by the decision you've made about the posts unless you've attempted to replicate whatever his method is, tested it, and share your results. 

                RL might be lying.  Saying he is lying is rude and and might be a lie. 

                There is nothing for you and RL to agree or disagree about.

                Josephus,

                Several of your points are well taken.  However, I must disagree with a couple.  I wish I had had more faith in the other readers before investing so much time, apparently much of it wasted.  The lack of enthusiastic postings supporting RL's claims should have been sufficient evidence for me to realize what you hint at; users of the system will find out how well it works.

                First of all, I think I made the case fairly well in my opening Post to this Topic that the more general philosophical "issues" are overriding in this situation.  What the determinists see as patterns, I see as noise.

                Secondly, I HAVE spent considerable time and energy analysing previous draws in these Forums in an attempt to show people that no matter what convoluted "lotto math" they applied to past history in the Pick-3 games, they tended to win on average 1 time for every 1000 straight bet tickets they purchased.  To no avail.

                http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1736549

                http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106

                Here's a full year's analysis of the Powerball:

                http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222395/1899924

                It's understandable how people who don't understand how much deviation can occur in random processes can get enthusiastic when a system works over a short period of time.  Until someone is willing to match their system selections daily over a period of at least several months, from a scientific point of view, they should not be taken seriously.  In one of the links above you may have seen that RickG WAS willing, and accepted the results.

                I really don't want to invest any more time on this.  Thanks for your input.

                --Jimmy4164

                  RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                  United States
                  Member #59354
                  March 13, 2008
                  3972 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 22, 2011, 8:57 pm - IP Logged

                  Josephus,

                  Several of your points are well taken.  However, I must disagree with a couple.  I wish I had had more faith in the other readers before investing so much time, apparently much of it wasted.  The lack of enthusiastic postings supporting RL's claims should have been sufficient evidence for me to realize what you hint at; users of the system will find out how well it works.

                  First of all, I think I made the case fairly well in my opening Post to this Topic that the more general philosophical "issues" are overriding in this situation.  What the determinists see as patterns, I see as noise.

                  Secondly, I HAVE spent considerable time and energy analysing previous draws in these Forums in an attempt to show people that no matter what convoluted "lotto math" they applied to past history in the Pick-3 games, they tended to win on average 1 time for every 1000 straight bet tickets they purchased.  To no avail.

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/218174/1736549

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/220106

                  Here's a full year's analysis of the Powerball:

                  http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/222395/1899924

                  It's understandable how people who don't understand how much deviation can occur in random processes can get enthusiastic when a system works over a short period of time.  Until someone is willing to match their system selections daily over a period of at least several months, from a scientific point of view, they should not be taken seriously.  In one of the links above you may have seen that RickG WAS willing, and accepted the results.

                  I really don't want to invest any more time on this.  Thanks for your input.

                  --Jimmy4164

                  Jimmy

                  Looking at day to day or week to week patterns will never work,  You have to be able to spot trends

                  that roll with the flow.  If I tried to play daily I would loose my shirt so to speak.  I will not post data 

                  that has taken much effort to find and is specific to my game.  These patterns are not easy to find 

                  and sometimes last but a very short span.   I have copies of tickets to support my claims and you having

                  not seen them is of little or no importance.  Your attack on raven was a cheap shot and the same thing

                  could of been said of your many post, you just took the time to try and make them look like they were

                  your own.  I enjoyed the it, an expereince I have never had reading your post.     

                  I don't try to impress anyone with my writting skills.  I post to the masses and not just the intellects.  The

                  whole purpose of my post was to bring awareness to what a line of numbers should include.  Playing a 

                  smarter set.  It's not always effective but will do better overall.   

                  RL

                    RL-RANDOMLOGIC's avatar - usafce

                    United States
                    Member #59354
                    March 13, 2008
                    3972 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 22, 2011, 9:31 pm - IP Logged

                    Jimmy4164:  You provide some interesting links.  Thanks.  But you included the hope those links would provide assistance investigating 'the issues'.

                    The issues here are lottery draws and whatever lottery draw results testify about themselves.  How they apply, or don't apply to larger issues isn't a factor.  A scientist formulates theory based on evidence examined.  All the evidence involving lottery draws is found in lottery draws.  Anyone can examine those draws and decide from them whether there is anything more to be learned from closer scrutiny.

                    RL's statements about his system and his experiences are interesting, but the truth or fiction of them is only marginally important.  The people he's given the system to will learn soon enough.  Those he hasn't given the system to don't have any reason to care.  His posts are interesting only as a source of potential avenues for those who've examined the evidence provided by the draw results.  If the results led them to believe a way can be found to predict future draws they'll read RL's posts with interest.  Otherwise they'll find his posts uninteresting. 

                    Your posts would be more interesting if you shared whatever you have examined and any new ideas that came to you as a result of those examinations.  General ideas and opinions not based on examination of evidence are sometimes interesting too, but can't contribute to a better understanding of the subject.

                    Readers of RL's posts will decide for themselves what to believe about them.  They won't be influenced by the decision you've made about the posts unless you've attempted to replicate whatever his method is, tested it, and share your results. 

                    RL might be lying.  Saying he is lying is rude and and might be a lie. 

                    There is nothing for you and RL to agree or disagree about.

                    josephus

                    Were were you six months ago.  You may be the only one who has correctly interpreted my post.  My

                    many hopes were that someone could take the ideas and improve on them.  I don't have all the answers

                    and each day I hope to find something else that may help.  I seem to be making microsteps and may have

                    pushed the digits to the limit of there usefulness, something I refuse to accept because I have not yet

                    explored every possibility. 

                    RL


                      United States
                      Member #93947
                      July 10, 2010
                      2180 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 22, 2011, 9:47 pm - IP Logged

                      Jimmy

                      Looking at day to day or week to week patterns will never work,  You have to be able to spot trends

                      that roll with the flow.  If I tried to play daily I would loose my shirt so to speak.  I will not post data 

                      that has taken much effort to find and is specific to my game.  These patterns are not easy to find 

                      and sometimes last but a very short span.   I have copies of tickets to support my claims and you having

                      not seen them is of little or no importance.  Your attack on raven was a cheap shot and the same thing

                      could of been said of your many post, you just took the time to try and make them look like they were

                      your own.  I enjoyed the it, an expereince I have never had reading your post.     

                      I don't try to impress anyone with my writting skills.  I post to the masses and not just the intellects.  The

                      whole purpose of my post was to bring awareness to what a line of numbers should include.  Playing a 

                      smarter set.  It's not always effective but will do better overall.   

                      RL

                      RL-RANDOMLOGIC,

                      When you say things like, "...the same thing could of been said of your many post, you just took the time to try and make them look like they were your own,"  you really need to back up your claims!

                      Would you like to produce some examples of my "many post[sic]" you feel are plagiarisms, including where I copied them from without attribution?

                      By the way, your lame excuses for not being able to prove your system will be profitable for others over reasonably long periods of time are getting boring.  Do you really think anyone believes a scan of a winning ticket is any more than that?  Who here couldn't produce "tons" of them?

                      --Jimmy4164

                      P.S.  Do you have anything original to say in response to the articles I pointed to above and the one Raven62 posted? 


                        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
                        Dallas, Texas
                        United States
                        Member #4549
                        May 2, 2004
                        1698 Posts
                        Online
                        Posted: February 22, 2011, 11:38 pm - IP Logged

                        josephus

                        Were were you six months ago.  You may be the only one who has correctly interpreted my post.  My

                        many hopes were that someone could take the ideas and improve on them.  I don't have all the answers

                        and each day I hope to find something else that may help.  I seem to be making microsteps and may have

                        pushed the digits to the limit of there usefulness, something I refuse to accept because I have not yet

                        explored every possibility. 

                        RL

                        RL, your digit system thread was much more interesting than the discussion that broke out about it. It sent me writing snippets to check the viability of your ideas.

                        I went back through and started checking the data again. Good start. Of the 56 first digit combinations, Base Numbers, call them left$, 4 produce 27% of the hit patterns in Texas Cash 5 over 3891 draws.

                        Pattern #28 - 01223  - showed 294 hits (Alpha pattern for those who use it ABCCD)

                        Pattern #25 - 01123 -  283 (ABBCD)

                        Pattern #29 - 01233 -  250 (ABCDD)

                        Pattern #15 - 00123 -  238 (AABCD)

                        Nice going there!

                        I expect to spend some time in the next couple of days working on the ID and TD breakdown and right$ data.

                        I think you have something. Let's put all the hockey sticks away and get back to the other thread.


                          United States
                          Member #93947
                          July 10, 2010
                          2180 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 23, 2011, 12:08 am - IP Logged

                          Sorry Raven62.  I think I jumped the gun with my finger slap for your post without a link.  Upon re-reading it, you deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case.  You could have easily assumed most would know it was an excerpt, and/or just forgot the link.

                          Also, your grammar and spelling is fine, in fact, better than most.  Smile

                          Additionally, posting the article on Indeterminism was right on topic, more than can be said for some of the others posting on this Topic!

                            savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho
                            adelaide sa
                            Australia
                            Member #37136
                            April 11, 2006
                            3300 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 23, 2011, 12:09 am - IP Logged

                            heres a bigger more important thing to ponder.

                             

                            if everything is pre determined, how do you know if you are supposed to win lotto or not. you cant decide , its all determioned, im not going to win and stop. if you are pre determined to win..

                            but then if you are pre determined to never win , why keep buying tickets?

                             

                            problem is with either luck or determinism. is we dont know when or if we will win in either case!

                            2014 = -1016; 2015= -1409; 2016 JAN = -106; FEB= -81; MAR= -131; APR= - 87: MAY= -91; JUN= -39; JUL=-134; AUG= -124; SEP = -123; OCT= -84  NOV=- 73 TOT= -3498

                            keno historic = -2291 ; 2015= -603; 2016= JAN=-32, FEB= +12 , MAR= -86, APR = -77. MAY= -48, JUN= -29, JUL=-71; AUG = -52; SEPT= -43; OCT = +56 NOV = -33 TOT= -3297


                              United States
                              Member #93947
                              July 10, 2010
                              2180 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 23, 2011, 12:19 am - IP Logged

                              heres a bigger more important thing to ponder.

                               

                              if everything is pre determined, how do you know if you are supposed to win lotto or not. you cant decide , its all determioned, im not going to win and stop. if you are pre determined to win..

                              but then if you are pre determined to never win , why keep buying tickets?

                               

                              problem is with either luck or determinism. is we dont know when or if we will win in either case!

                              Savagegoose,

                              So I guess this forces us to fall back on the old adage that you can't win if you don't play.  Smile

                              I think you'll like this!

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta1Sn6MtC9w

                              This should not be considered off topic as it has to do with the determinism/indeterminism dichotomy.

                              --Jimmy4164