Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
From: John Jones on 12 Nov 2009 16:26
HardySpicer wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:11 am, 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.
>
> For a "fair" coin the ossing problem is random and not deterministic.
> This means we can only assign an expected value to the outcome.

But what is the outcome? We set conditions for an outcome that aren't
properties of the coin or what happens to it.
From: John Jones on 12 Nov 2009 16:31
Marshall 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 are right of course. See new post.
From: Dan Listermann on 12 Nov 2009 16:32

"John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hdhuie$s15$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> HardySpicer wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 10:11 am, 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.
>>
>> For a "fair" coin the ossing problem is random and not deterministic.
>> This means we can only assign an expected value to the outcome.
>
> But what is the outcome? We set conditions for an outcome that aren't
> properties of the coin or what happens to it.

With a fair coin, individual tosses cannot be predicted. Now the average
toss of a number of coins is another matter. It is highly predictable at
50% heads and 50% tails. The more tosses, the more predictable.


From: jmfbahciv on 13 Nov 2009 07:35
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 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 :-|
>

I don't think so. They can breed.

/BAH
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 13 Nov 2009 11:28
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in message
hdjj3411kct(a)news4.newsguy.com
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> 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 :-|
>>
>
> I don't think so. They can breed.

Hmmmm...
Otoh, if insects weren't subsidised, *we* would starve...

Dirk Vdm
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness