Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
From: Marshall on 12 Nov 2009 09:43 On Nov 12, 2:12 am, Alan Smaill <sma...(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> writes: > > On Nov 12, 2:12 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 1:11 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers > > > > have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, > > > > however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a > > > > tossed coin. > > > > > For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed > > > > coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen > > > > from below we may see tails. > > > > > The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. > > > > Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, > > > > subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt > > > > AFTER the coin has been tossed. > > > > Your suggestion that we can "toss" a coin is obvious nonsense. > > > From the spatial orientation of the coin, the coin itself is entirely > > > motionless; any tossing is impossible. It may be however that > > > the universe spins about the coin. Heads? Tails? These cannot > > > exist without a framework, and the coin itself specifies no framework.. > > > The coin exists as a whole, undivided into "sides." Both sides > > > exist simultaneously. Indeed, they MUST exist; there can be no > > > possibility of a coin with only heads, or, obversely, only tails. The > > > coin cannot imagine it, and neither can the universe, though either > > > may give the appearance of spinning to the naive observer. > > > > Marshall > > > > j/k > > > You're as pissed as Jones. > > You missed the parody -- > pretty good IMHO. Thanks! I have noticed that no useful idea can pass through the sieve that Jones applies. However it is also the case that no use*less* idea can pass through it either! Hence the amusing distraction of replying to Jones in Jones' own style. Marshall
From: Errol on 12 Nov 2009 10:09 On Nov 12, 4:43 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks! I have noticed that no useful idea can pass > through the sieve that Jones applies. However it is > also the case that no use*less* idea can pass through > it either! Hence the amusing distraction of replying > to Jones in Jones' own style. > > Marshall- hehe! While the Earth rotates around the coin it is "revealed". Revealed objects have to be presented. When the coin falls into a hole, it becomes "hidden" and cannot be presented. The coin has no "parts". There are no objects or parts because we only ever see a hole, and a hole is not countable or presentable. A hole is not countable because there are no other points of reference to make a count possible, so it doesn't matter how many sides the coin has as two sides is the same as a singleton and is incommensurable and not subject to relationship as one cannot have a presentable relationship with two.
From: Alan Smaill on 12 Nov 2009 12:10 Errol <vs.errol(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Nov 12, 4:43�pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks! I have noticed that no useful idea can pass > > through the sieve that Jones applies. However it is > > also the case that no use*less* idea can pass through > > it either! Hence the amusing distraction of replying > > to Jones in Jones' own style. > > > > Marshall- > > hehe! > > While the Earth rotates around the coin it is "revealed". Revealed > objects have to be presented. When the coin falls into a hole, it > becomes "hidden" and cannot be presented. > The coin has no "parts". There are no objects or parts because we only > ever see a hole, and a hole is not countable or presentable. A hole is > not countable because there are no other points of reference to make a > count possible, so it doesn't matter how many sides the coin has as > two sides is the same as a singleton and is incommensurable and not > subject to relationship as one cannot have a presentable relationship > with two. Just so --- and, after all, the identity is the identity of the identity with the non-identity. Holes can be no other. -- Alan Smaill
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 12 Nov 2009 13:25 John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message hdfgp8$n1c$2(a)news.eternal-september.org > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >> John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message >> hdf9ad$m2n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org >>> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers >>> have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, >>> however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a >>> tossed coin. >>> >>> For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed >>> coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen >>> from below we may see tails. >>> >>> The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. >> >> The geometry of a mirror or a camera allows us to see both >> sides at a time. > > But then you create two images. If you create two images for the coin, > heads and tails, then that would be even less argumentatively likely to > yield an outcome. > > If the object was transparent, maybe. But in all cases physical objects > always have a hidden or covered face, or they wouldn't be physical objects. > >> >>> Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, >>> subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt >>> AFTER the coin has been tossed. >> >> >> It's a good thing that some people escape starvation through subsidies :-) A very good thing indeed :-| Dirk Vdm
From: John Jones on 12 Nov 2009 16:25
Uncle Al wrote: > John Jones wrote: >> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers >> have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, >> however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a >> tossed coin. >> >> For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed >> coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen >> from below we may see tails. > > Hey stooopid - what happens if it lands on its edge? But what happens if you lose it? And then it falls into the sea and is eternally tossed about? what happens if a car runs over the observer while the coin is still turning? Eh? What about that then? Eh? Eh? > You erected a > straw man, that an outcome is ambiguous even after its participants > agree on exclusionary rules. Now you have swabbed it into a tar > baby. You give it a hug. We're not stupid. Here's some more straw men. What happens if someone steals your money before you toss it? What happens if it lands on its edge? What happens if it falls in a bucket of cement at an angle of 45 degrees? Eh? Tell me that then? >> The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. > > Glass table, mirror, videocam... transparent coin; Moebius coin, Klein > bottle coin... What happens if you pull one eye out of your socket and put it on the far side of the coin while its on a glass table? >> Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, >> subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt >> AFTER the coin has been tossed. > > Toss it in vacuum, in free fall. Put adhesive on the ceiling, have > the obverse and converse be identical, use a disk magnetized so its > pole are it broad faces. Don't look at the outcome. Use an astable > multivibrator instead. What happens if the coin falls onto a disc-cutter and drops in two halfs, heads up and tails up? > Toss a cat with a piece of buttered bread strapped to its belly butter > side up when the cat's feet are down. Drop the cat from a modest > height and watch it hover. Hey stooopid - if you butter both sides of > a piece of toast, will it still land butter side down? What's the answer if the coin gets mixed up with hundreds of other coins? > > Uncle Al says, "Get stuck in an unpowered elevator and lavish > emergency procedures and personnel are mobilized. Get stuck on an > unpowered escalator and people look at you like you are an idiot." > > idiot > What happens if the coin hits you on the head and knocks you out? What happens if the coin is made of solid carbon dioxide and falls into a bucket of water? What if you're broke? What happens if the coin is heads on both sides? What if you don't know how to toss a coin? What's the answer if you don't give a bollocks either way? |