Welcome Guest
You last visited December 14, 2017, 7:36 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Lottery Code has already been broken

Topic closed. 500 replies. Last post 4 years ago by superstar\$.

 Page 11 of 34
Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 2:14 am - IP Logged

Eh.... What can I say? I'm not a physicist, I didn't even take any more than 1 semester of physics in year 1 in university. I don't know enough about physics, so I can't say anything. But I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding it. You take an extremely simplified view and abstract it in ways that...

Well, anyway, I can't say you're wrong, because I simply don't know. You could be right, but I'm not very convinced.

What I can say, is that "numbers" are an abstraction that people use to simplify the information they take in. "1, 2, 3, 4..." don't exist by themselves. They're man made. So it's not like the number "1" has some innate quality or energy to it. And even if it did, its not so simple that you can find "rules" by looking at past draws.

I assume that even if the universe was deterministic, it would take a turing machine to calculate it.

Los Angeles, California
United States
Member #103813
January 5, 2011
1530 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 11:40 am - IP Logged

Eh.... What can I say? I'm not a physicist, I didn't even take any more than 1 semester of physics in year 1 in university. I don't know enough about physics, so I can't say anything. But I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding it. You take an extremely simplified view and abstract it in ways that...

Well, anyway, I can't say you're wrong, because I simply don't know. You could be right, but I'm not very convinced.

What I can say, is that "numbers" are an abstraction that people use to simplify the information they take in. "1, 2, 3, 4..." don't exist by themselves. They're man made. So it's not like the number "1" has some innate quality or energy to it. And even if it did, its not so simple that you can find "rules" by looking at past draws.

I assume that even if the universe was deterministic, it would take a turing machine to calculate it.

There you go again, proclaiming in a condescending manner that someone doesn't understand when they happen to disagree with you. Kola responded very nicely and eloquently, but you are so certain you are right and that anyone else is wrong...that's so sad*.

You just don't understand* the lottery, and how things work in the real world. You go on and on about theoretical, probabilities and statistics, yada, yada. The fact is, past lottery results can have bearing on future draws. And don't reference the Gambler's Fallacy again. That has been mentioned many times one this site,(mostly by Jimmy) long before you got here. I understand it and have mentioned it before as well. You aren't providing any grand illumination to the ignorant masses...please.

Onlymoney mentioned the PA lottery incident earlier in this thread, and you accused him of being a typical self-centered American. Nice one bro... You were just ignorant* of it and refused to look it up. I've got another one: the TN Lottery Incident. Here, I'll do your work for you* on this one: http://www.lotterypost.com/news/161740

As in the TN incident, players analyzing past draw results may be able to detect anomalies in the lottery, which is not truly random, and subject to imperfections, defects and human mishandling...in the real world. You may disagree with the effectiveness of such endeavors, but do not make a blanket statement that it is completely useless.

* denotes some of your passive-aggressive zingers you often use thrown right back at you

CHERRY HILL, NJ
United States
Member #130213
July 9, 2012
387 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 2:06 pm - IP Logged

oK well if weight is not a factor then could how high you throwe it be ?

A regular player in our neck of the woods just won \$14K again this week playing Pick4. He's a regular but he comes in only once a week to play his numbers for the rest of the week. He drops about \$800 a eek on the whole set, pick3 to mb to pb.

Is it possible for the guys doing the pre-tests to be like, "Joe's bet is on Heads so lets do a pre-test until we get Heads" ?

Blundering Time Traveler
Milky Way Spiral
United States
Member #28945
December 25, 2005
1548 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 2:20 pm - IP Logged

Eh.... What can I say? I'm not a physicist, I didn't even take any more than 1 semester of physics in year 1 in university. I don't know enough about physics, so I can't say anything. But I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding it. You take an extremely simplified view and abstract it in ways that...

Well, anyway, I can't say you're wrong, because I simply don't know. You could be right, but I'm not very convinced.

What I can say, is that "numbers" are an abstraction that people use to simplify the information they take in. "1, 2, 3, 4..." don't exist by themselves. They're man made. So it's not like the number "1" has some innate quality or energy to it. And even if it did, its not so simple that you can find "rules" by looking at past draws.

I assume that even if the universe was deterministic, it would take a turing machine to calculate it.

You said, "I don't know enough about physics", and then you say, "I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding it".  That's not congruent. You then said,  "you take an extremely simplified view and then abstract it in ways that...".  But you said you don't know enough about physics, so how can you know if I'm simplifying? It probably just "feels" that way to you, because the connections I drew were in fact simple and easy to grasp.  Yes, 'truth' should sound and be that simple. I say 'truth', because the science I stated is iron-clad, old and well established. It takes no great leaps in understanding to comprehend it, and if you were to pick up any high school science text-book, or try to earnestly recall your former high school science classes, you could easily see its verification and be convinced. I do appreciate your honesty when you said, "I can't say you're wrong, because I simply don't know. You could be right, but I'm not very convinced". Yet, because you called it simplistic infers that you absorbed the simple concepts and if you easily did so, maybe its because a deep un-resisting part of you sympathetically and resonantly hums with these 'truths'...

Whatever is spawned from a field of energy -- like thoughts of numbers from the mind of man,

In a Field of Energy -- like the environment or our universe,

is by logical extension - energy too. To think otherwise, is cognitive dissonance.

You said, that even if numbers have some innate quality, "its not so simple that you can find "rules" by looking at past draws". How do you know? We assume things have to be extraordinarily complex. Why? It doesn't have to be. Some of it will be simple, and some things will be challenging, but it doesn't have to extraordinarily complex.  It looks very hard because of the lens through which we view it. Compare this to your growth from youth to adulthood: the things you read in your early youth have much broader things to communicate to you through the lens of your adulthood. And with regards to past lottery draws, while numbers do have intrinsic energetic properties, how they express themselves is also dependent upon the ability of a technique, method or system to help it do so. As we know, these systems have their limits and their strengths, but the Most Limiting aspect is our ability to interpret what our systems are trying to tell us. Just like the youth to adulthood analogy, the same system we create today will have different things to tell us, if we were to put it down and pick it up 20 years later. In essence many systems can be excellent or unbeknowst to us, behave lke straightjackets. Even with the straight-jackets, the numbers will still do a stellar job, and it would be up to us to interpret the "straght-jacket language". Good luck to you!

May your numbers be true this day,

Kola

"Study Nature, love Nature, stay close to Nature. It will never fail you."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Los Angeles, California
United States
Member #103813
January 5, 2011
1530 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 2:26 pm - IP Logged

A regular player in our neck of the woods just won \$14K again this week playing Pick4. He's a regular but he comes in only once a week to play his numbers for the rest of the week. He drops about \$800 a eek on the whole set, pick3 to mb to pb.

Is it possible for the guys doing the pre-tests to be like, "Joe's bet is on Heads so lets do a pre-test until we get Heads" ?

It's possible, but I don't necessarily believe it is being employed.

If the pre-draw is done fairly, it shouldn't affect the randomness of actual draw results. Fairly meaning consistent/identical number of draws and procedures, or completely random draws.

But if the pre-draw was done *selectively* then it could skew the results. For instance, if there were a lot of bets on 123 or the longest out "due" number was 644, and the lottery operators were particularly devious and wanted to mess with people, they could run the RNG over and over again until they hit that number, and then do the live draw immediately after that. So any other number would have an equal chance to appear, but that number only appears as a sequential hit off the RNG.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 2:59 pm - IP Logged

It's possible, but I don't necessarily believe it is being employed.

If the pre-draw is done fairly, it shouldn't affect the randomness of actual draw results. Fairly meaning consistent/identical number of draws and procedures, or completely random draws.

But if the pre-draw was done *selectively* then it could skew the results. For instance, if there were a lot of bets on 123 or the longest out "due" number was 644, and the lottery operators were particularly devious and wanted to mess with people, they could run the RNG over and over again until they hit that number, and then do the live draw immediately after that. So any other number would have an equal chance to appear, but that number only appears as a sequential hit off the RNG.

Jon D,

When I wrote programs requiring random number generation in the past, I employed a simple technique to ensure randomness.  First, I would debug the program using the built-in RNG of the program library and the same seed, which produced the exact same sequence for each run.  Once the program was ready for use, I introduced another random dimension to the process.  In a shell routine which called the RNG, I inserted a segment of code which read the 5 low order bits of the system clock (at that time in microseconds) and cycled the RNG 0 to 31 times, based on these bits.  The value returned from the next RNG cycle was returned to the calling program.  This resulted in an Incredibly Long, Unpredictable Period for the RNG.

Wouldn't you hope the lotteries are doing something similar?  If I was an IT person at a lottery and knew the sequence could be predicted, I would suggest something like the above until it was adopted.  If there was resistance, I would become suspicious and look up my favorite investigative media reporter!

--Jimmy4164

Los Angeles, California
United States
Member #103813
January 5, 2011
1530 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 3:14 pm - IP Logged

Jon D,

When I wrote programs requiring random number generation in the past, I employed a simple technique to ensure randomness.  First, I would debug the program using the built-in RNG of the program library and the same seed, which produced the exact same sequence for each run.  Once the program was ready for use, I introduced another random dimension to the process.  In a shell routine which called the RNG, I inserted a segment of code which read the 5 low order bits of the system clock (at that time in microseconds) and cycled the RNG 0 to 31 times, based on these bits.  The value returned from the next RNG cycle was returned to the calling program.  This resulted in an Incredibly Long, Unpredictable Period for the RNG.

Wouldn't you hope the lotteries are doing something similar?  If I was an IT person at a lottery and knew the sequence could be predicted, I would suggest something like the above until it was adopted.  If there was resistance, I would become suspicious and look up my favorite investigative media reporter!

--Jimmy4164

There's a description of our electronic draws for CA, and it seems pretty hard to crack. Arguably harder to spot any anomalies than with bouncing balls. A hack would probably have to be an inside job by the contractor who supplies the machine.

It is a random selection of different random number generators, one a pseudo-random algorithm, the other an RNG.(I assume hardware type running of unsyncd clocks or noice sources) I still have a question about terminal quick picks though, how well those are generated, how often seeded, if PRNG or RNG, etc.

"The Automated Draw Machine is a stand-alone computer, which means it isn't connected to any other computer system. The computer's hard drive cannot be opened without breaking a numbered security seal. Inside the computer, the programs that generate the random numbers are permanently implanted or "burned in" and cannot be altered. You could compare it to trying to alter the information on a compact disk. Tampering with the system in any way is impossible.

The California Lottery has purchased three separate Automated Draw Machines, two are used for the daily draws and the third one is used as an off-site backup in the event of an emergency. Each day before the draw, a manual capsule draw is conducted to determine which draw device will be used - A or B. Another manual capsule draw is conducted to determine which randomization method is used, one being a mathematical algorithm and the other being a Random Number Generator. The numbers selected from either method are unpredictable and selected in an unbiased manner."

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 3:32 pm - IP Logged

There's a description of our electronic draws for CA, and it seems pretty hard to crack. Arguably harder to spot any anomalies than with bouncing balls. A hack would probably have to be an inside job by the contractor who supplies the machine.

It is a random selection of different random number generators, one a pseudo-random algorithm, the other an RNG.(I assume hardware type running of unsyncd clocks or noice sources) I still have a question about terminal quick picks though, how well those are generated, how often seeded, if PRNG or RNG, etc.

"The Automated Draw Machine is a stand-alone computer, which means it isn't connected to any other computer system. The computer's hard drive cannot be opened without breaking a numbered security seal. Inside the computer, the programs that generate the random numbers are permanently implanted or "burned in" and cannot be altered. You could compare it to trying to alter the information on a compact disk. Tampering with the system in any way is impossible.

The California Lottery has purchased three separate Automated Draw Machines, two are used for the daily draws and the third one is used as an off-site backup in the event of an emergency. Each day before the draw, a manual capsule draw is conducted to determine which draw device will be used - A or B. Another manual capsule draw is conducted to determine which randomization method is used, one being a mathematical algorithm and the other being a Random Number Generator. The numbers selected from either method are unpredictable and selected in an unbiased manner."

As long as the setup (hardware & software) is monitored by experts employed by more than one interest group, lottery, political, public, etc., this system sounds VERY secure to me.  It is probably an order of magnitude more random than my old ones, which passed every test for randomness available at the time.

I'm surprised you're concerned about pre and post tests.  This is not a system whose next random number has anything to do with the last one!

Krypton
United States
Member #140102
March 11, 2013
908 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 3:38 pm - IP Logged

I'see heard of ppl getting into "secure" web sites before   This is a teenager. One of many

http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/us-military-and-government-computers-hacked-by-teenager-calling-himself-stakkato/

Los Angeles, California
United States
Member #103813
January 5, 2011
1530 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 3:47 pm - IP Logged

As long as the setup (hardware & software) is monitored by experts employed by more than one interest group, lottery, political, public, etc., this system sounds VERY secure to me.  It is probably an order of magnitude more random than my old ones, which passed every test for randomness available at the time.

I'm surprised you're concerned about pre and post tests.  This is not a system whose next random number has anything to do with the last one!

Pre/post tests don't bother me. I don't think it affects the draws. I think systems people get upset because they only get a sample of the draws, like adding decks of cards to a shoe in blackjack, it makes it harder to get an accurate count.

But based on the CA electronic draw example, trying to glean information from a random of a random in that manner, even with pre-draw data... I don't believe any system, if it could detect any anomaly in a RNG of that structure, would be enough to overcome a prize structure with a 50% house edge. But I'll stop short of saying its impossible, just darn near.

Hacking and fraud is another story.

Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 4:03 pm - IP Logged

There you go again, proclaiming in a condescending manner that someone doesn't understand when they happen to disagree with you. Kola responded very nicely and eloquently, but you are so certain you are right and that anyone else is wrong...that's so sad*.

You just don't understand* the lottery, and how things work in the real world. You go on and on about theoretical, probabilities and statistics, yada, yada. The fact is, past lottery results can have bearing on future draws. And don't reference the Gambler's Fallacy again. That has been mentioned many times one this site,(mostly by Jimmy) long before you got here. I understand it and have mentioned it before as well. You aren't providing any grand illumination to the ignorant masses...please.

Onlymoney mentioned the PA lottery incident earlier in this thread, and you accused him of being a typical self-centered American. Nice one bro... You were just ignorant* of it and refused to look it up. I've got another one: the TN Lottery Incident. Here, I'll do your work for you* on this one: http://www.lotterypost.com/news/161740

As in the TN incident, players analyzing past draw results may be able to detect anomalies in the lottery, which is not truly random, and subject to imperfections, defects and human mishandling...in the real world. You may disagree with the effectiveness of such endeavors, but do not make a blanket statement that it is completely useless.

* denotes some of your passive-aggressive zingers you often use thrown right back at you

You don't even read what I write, you attack me and make assumptions when you see my name on top of a post. That's even more sad.

I even wrote I can't say he's wrong, because I simply don't know. So how am I certain that I am right and anyone else is wrong? Just by that one statement, it clearly shows your unwillingness to even read what I wrote, and your extreme, unfounded and unfair bias against me.

You can't refute my argument that others have also been offensive, even before me, yet you don't pick on their statements. It's much more fitting to call YOU the troll. I've nothing more to say to you.

Blundering Time Traveler
Milky Way Spiral
United States
Member #28945
December 25, 2005
1548 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

There you go again, proclaiming in a condescending manner that someone doesn't understand when they happen to disagree with you. Kola responded very nicely and eloquently, but you are so certain you are right and that anyone else is wrong...that's so sad*.

You just don't understand* the lottery, and how things work in the real world. You go on and on about theoretical, probabilities and statistics, yada, yada. The fact is, past lottery results can have bearing on future draws. And don't reference the Gambler's Fallacy again. That has been mentioned many times one this site,(mostly by Jimmy) long before you got here. I understand it and have mentioned it before as well. You aren't providing any grand illumination to the ignorant masses...please.

Onlymoney mentioned the PA lottery incident earlier in this thread, and you accused him of being a typical self-centered American. Nice one bro... You were just ignorant* of it and refused to look it up. I've got another one: the TN Lottery Incident. Here, I'll do your work for you* on this one: http://www.lotterypost.com/news/161740

As in the TN incident, players analyzing past draw results may be able to detect anomalies in the lottery, which is not truly random, and subject to imperfections, defects and human mishandling...in the real world. You may disagree with the effectiveness of such endeavors, but do not make a blanket statement that it is completely useless.

* denotes some of your passive-aggressive zingers you often use thrown right back at you

Good luck to you.

"Study Nature, love Nature, stay close to Nature. It will never fail you."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Toronto
Member #138397
January 26, 2013
179 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 4:53 pm - IP Logged

You said, "I don't know enough about physics", and then you say, "I'm almost certain you're misunderstanding it".  That's not congruent. You then said,  "you take an extremely simplified view and then abstract it in ways that...".  But you said you don't know enough about physics, so how can you know if I'm simplifying? It probably just "feels" that way to you, because the connections I drew were in fact simple and easy to grasp.  Yes, 'truth' should sound and be that simple. I say 'truth', because the science I stated is iron-clad, old and well established. It takes no great leaps in understanding to comprehend it, and if you were to pick up any high school science text-book, or try to earnestly recall your former high school science classes, you could easily see its verification and be convinced. I do appreciate your honesty when you said, "I can't say you're wrong, because I simply don't know. You could be right, but I'm not very convinced". Yet, because you called it simplistic infers that you absorbed the simple concepts and if you easily did so, maybe its because a deep un-resisting part of you sympathetically and resonantly hums with these 'truths'...

Whatever is spawned from a field of energy -- like thoughts of numbers from the mind of man,

In a Field of Energy -- like the environment or our universe,

is by logical extension - energy too. To think otherwise, is cognitive dissonance.

You said, that even if numbers have some innate quality, "its not so simple that you can find "rules" by looking at past draws". How do you know? We assume things have to be extraordinarily complex. Why? It doesn't have to be. Some of it will be simple, and some things will be challenging, but it doesn't have to extraordinarily complex.  It looks very hard because of the lens through which we view it. Compare this to your growth from youth to adulthood: the things you read in your early youth have much broader things to communicate to you through the lens of your adulthood. And with regards to past lottery draws, while numbers do have intrinsic energetic properties, how they express themselves is also dependent upon the ability of a technique, method or system to help it do so. As we know, these systems have their limits and their strengths, but the Most Limiting aspect is our ability to interpret what our systems are trying to tell us. Just like the youth to adulthood analogy, the same system we create today will have different things to tell us, if we were to put it down and pick it up 20 years later. In essence many systems can be excellent or unbeknowst to us, behave lke straightjackets. Even with the straight-jackets, the numbers will still do a stellar job, and it would be up to us to interpret the "straght-jacket language". Good luck to you!

May your numbers be true this day,

Kola

There's nothing "not congruent" about my statements. I don't know much about physics, but common sense tells me you can't abstract things like such. Of course, I could be wrong, and I pointed that out.

Let me give you an example of what I think your argument basically is like: "If you take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building, and let it go, it'll fall to the ground. If you take a chair, it'll also fall to the ground. When you're not on the ground, you'll fall. So if you ever leave earth, as soon as you run out of fuel, you'll keep falling and falling down, unless you have wings. Because wings can make you fly. Birds have proven that."

I don't know enough about physics. But I do know a very, very little. First, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the big bang theory really suggest that it was a "BALL" of energy? Note my emphasis here, since I studied math for a while, a "ball" has a very precise meaning for me. It's very different to say that the energy was a BALL rather than a point, which was what I was taught it is. When using physics to support your argument, you should be precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. It's been a while since I last learned physics.

Regardless, the second paragraph of your "theory", lets  call it, makes a huge leap of faith. How do you know that this "all is one energy" you talk about cannot be separated? Where's the proof? Your pants and pockets analogy is neither sufficient nor convincing. All I know is, if I cut an apple in half, eat one half, the other half is still left uneaten and unaffected by the fact that I ate the other half.

When I said simplistic, I don't mean easy to understand. I meant you're preaching without proof or evidence. You're making deductions and assumptions without any sort of support.

"The human race's ability to number things doesn't just spring from some void." Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, where's your proof or evidence?

"It springs from the intimate connection that you and your environment have." Evidence? Most of your ideas and statements are like this, without any supporting evidence, just saying that it is so. With absolutely no disrespect to religion, it reminds me of *some* (NOT ALL!) priests who would tell you to listen to the bible's teachings. Why? Because it's the word of god. Why? Because god said so. Where? In the bible.

But, okay, let's say you're right. You're right on all the above. The point I doubt most, is again, another part of the very little I know of physics: You can't know the precise location of an electron.

The location of an electron is given as a probability density function, where the more time you have, the more confidence you have in that the electron is in a certain area. But as you shorten the amount of time, the probability goes down. Which means you cannot locate an electron at a precise time. This tells me that the location of the electron is more or less "random". It cannot be calculated. What this implies, is that even within this so called "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", there are things that cannot be precisely calculated.

Even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE.

That was my main point of this post. So if you skim everything else, please look at that one sentence.

I will conclude by explaining why I feel you can't get the "rules" of future draws simply by looking at past draws. How do I know? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident in my feeling. Why? Because if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient. I mean, even if it was somehow sufficient, you can't be confident in it. How do you know that past draws affect the current draw more than, say, a fat alien in another galaxy eating chips? You can't tell.

So even if in the end, the "formula" of the next draw is simply the numbers from the previous draw + 1, you can't be confident in this result unless you've proved everything else that might affect it won't. Which will take a lot of work.

United States
Member #128790
June 2, 2012
5431 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 6:16 pm - IP Logged

There's nothing "not congruent" about my statements. I don't know much about physics, but common sense tells me you can't abstract things like such. Of course, I could be wrong, and I pointed that out.

Let me give you an example of what I think your argument basically is like: "If you take an apple to the top of a 25-storey building, and let it go, it'll fall to the ground. If you take a chair, it'll also fall to the ground. When you're not on the ground, you'll fall. So if you ever leave earth, as soon as you run out of fuel, you'll keep falling and falling down, unless you have wings. Because wings can make you fly. Birds have proven that."

I don't know enough about physics. But I do know a very, very little. First, from my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the big bang theory really suggest that it was a "BALL" of energy? Note my emphasis here, since I studied math for a while, a "ball" has a very precise meaning for me. It's very different to say that the energy was a BALL rather than a point, which was what I was taught it is. When using physics to support your argument, you should be precise, to show you actually know what you're talking about. Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. It's been a while since I last learned physics.

Regardless, the second paragraph of your "theory", lets  call it, makes a huge leap of faith. How do you know that this "all is one energy" you talk about cannot be separated? Where's the proof? Your pants and pockets analogy is neither sufficient nor convincing. All I know is, if I cut an apple in half, eat one half, the other half is still left uneaten and unaffected by the fact that I ate the other half.

When I said simplistic, I don't mean easy to understand. I meant you're preaching without proof or evidence. You're making deductions and assumptions without any sort of support.

"The human race's ability to number things doesn't just spring from some void." Regardless of whether I agree or disagree, where's your proof or evidence?

"It springs from the intimate connection that you and your environment have." Evidence? Most of your ideas and statements are like this, without any supporting evidence, just saying that it is so. With absolutely no disrespect to religion, it reminds me of *some* (NOT ALL!) priests who would tell you to listen to the bible's teachings. Why? Because it's the word of god. Why? Because god said so. Where? In the bible.

But, okay, let's say you're right. You're right on all the above. The point I doubt most, is again, another part of the very little I know of physics: You can't know the precise location of an electron.

The location of an electron is given as a probability density function, where the more time you have, the more confidence you have in that the electron is in a certain area. But as you shorten the amount of time, the probability goes down. Which means you cannot locate an electron at a precise time. This tells me that the location of the electron is more or less "random". It cannot be calculated. What this implies, is that even within this so called "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", there are things that cannot be precisely calculated.

Even if everything in the entire universe interacts and affects each other, saying that they AFFECT is completely different from saying that they DETERMINE.

That was my main point of this post. So if you skim everything else, please look at that one sentence.

I will conclude by explaining why I feel you can't get the "rules" of future draws simply by looking at past draws. How do I know? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident in my feeling. Why? Because if as you say, everything in the entire universe is "ALL IS ONE ENERGY", and interacts and affects each other, than just looking at past draws is simply not enough! If even a wisp of wind on a planet in a galaxy far away could affect us, and affect the draw, well, I highly doubt that simply looking at the numbers from past draws would be sufficient. I mean, even if it was somehow sufficient, you can't be confident in it. How do you know that past draws affect the current draw more than, say, a fat alien in another galaxy eating chips? You can't tell.

So even if in the end, the "formula" of the next draw is simply the numbers from the previous draw + 1, you can't be confident in this result unless you've proved everything else that might affect it won't. Which will take a lot of work.

Hey Pumpi, I'm glad you made it back to LP. I missed your posts. Welcome back !

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: June 6, 2013, 6:20 pm - IP Logged

yoho,

Good luck in your efforts here!  As he rambles on and on about the possibility of divining future draws, Kola reveals [what I perceive to be] his primary purpose - to keep hope alive that it CAN be done.  You might get some ideas from my encounter with this one.  Note also the familiar cast of characters who join in to support him, and attack me...