Creationist and extinct species

[Buffy]

OK I'm just pushing buttons now, I'll shut up. ;)

That's obvious! Look at all the lumps on your head! :doh:

 

Helping people learn the hard way, :lol:

Buffy

[sanctus]

Actually I agree, since when is throwing a dice real random? It seems to us only random because we don't know all variables in play (corners exact right angl?, wind?, strength and direction of throw?, pulse of the blood circuling in my hand?, ...). I think this a good example of chaos theory, we don't know all variables to enough precision to be able to predict the outcome, but theoretically it should be possible...at least I guess

[Buffy]

... since when is throwing a dice real random? ...

Since it can be affected by quantum randomness!!!! Sure, you could with much more information on exact mechanics and starting conditions get *better* at predicting dice throws, but the quantum level will still kick in a few of its own contributions to ensure that there's no perfect predictability.

 

...unless of course you disagree with the whole notion of quantum randomness...

 

Heisenberg strikes again,

Buffy

[CraigD]

Actually I agree, since when is throwing a dice real random?

Since it can be affected by quantum randomness!!!!

The typical die being an ensemble of more than 10[math]^{22}[/math] atoms, I don’t believe any quantum physical effects could be observed unless they were in a Bose–Einstein condensate state. This state occurs only at temperatures close to -273° C, way less than anything in contact with the hot, sweaty fingers of a gamer.

 

As sanctus guesses

It seems to us only random because we don't know all variables in play (corners exact right angl?, wind?, strength and direction of throw?, pulse of the blood circuling in my hand?, ...). I think this a good example of chaos theory, we don't know all variables to enough precision to be able to predict the outcome, but theoretically it should be possible...at least I guess

Uuuhhm, the die lands on a certain number because your subconscious decided to roll it a certain way.

Ah, If I had a quarter for every time I’d heard this… well, I’d have enough for dinner and a movie, maybe. :) (I mean I’ve heard it a lot)

 

Being well acquainted with people who use dice a lot (eg: gamers, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when physical dice were the norm for random number generation), I’m familiar with a plethora of anecdotal theories concerning the conscious and unconscious control of hand (or even cup or more elaborate device) –rolled dice. Most have in common that they ascribe luck at dice games to this effect, and suggest that really lucky people have an unusually dice-controlling ability. In my experience the belief that people are able to physically control dice after they have left their hands, through the (never scientifically detected) effects of psychokinesis (“PKE”) is actually a bit more common than the belief in unconscious or conscious physical control.

 

Despite a lot of testing, and a whole pseudo-scientific industry involved in ascribe high statistical significance to positive results, I’ve never seen well-controlled statistical evidence that either physical hand-mind control or any other effect is able to influence the roll of a fair die, with one class of exceptions.

 

Those exceptions involve an “old gamer’s trick” of stealthily imparting a strong spin on a die when throwing it, typically by seating it between the ring and little finger and flicking your hand up sharply while throwing the die as close to the table as possible With a little practice (and/or a large enough die), most people can cause a fair die to land on a slick surface with its axis of spin nearly vertical, so that the same face remains pointed up until it comes to rest.

 

Although I’ve met many people who claimed to be able to use the technique under “standard” conditions – a high drop to a non-slick surface, etc - to roughly double the number of a particular die roll in a large number of tries vs. the expected number - (eg: throw a “6” in 35 times or more in 100 times rather than near the expected 17 times), I’ve never seen anyone successfully prove the claim. Nonetheless, I’ve seen violent arguments break out over accusations of the use of the technique (especially when both parties believe it possible), and profit made by companies providing means to thwart it, from game-accessories such as “dice towers”, to the precisely quality controlled (and very un-slick) felt fabric used to cover dice-rolling surfaces in commercial casinos.

 

Having had years to mull over possible explanations for the belief, despite the absence of supporting well-controlled experimental evidence, I’ve come up with a couple of psychological theories – all untested, of course (though psych theories seem to get by without testing better than most)

• Freud Pioneering psychologist Sigmund Freud suggested in his psychodynamic theory of personality that the unconscious part of everyone’s personality was “supergenius”, capable of feats of perfect recollection, lightning mathematical calculation, and great physical strength and precision. This is key to the Freudian psychoanalytic belief that what appear to be accidents (eg: falls, bumping our heads, etc.) are rarely or never actually accidents, but occur for a reason, know initially only to our unconscious minds, but revealable with the proper psychotherapeutic techniques to our conscious minds.
   
  Although accurate, detailed understandings of the history and concepts of Freud’s theories are not common, many people know bits and pieces of it, the idea of the “supergenius unconscious” being one of the more commonly known.
  
• Rhine Psychologist and founder of “parapsychology” Joseph Banks Rhine conducted thousands of hours of lab (and more informal) tests to attempt to scientifically support or refute common beliefs in extra-normal human mental abilities (ESP). Several of his experiments involved dice rolling.
   
  Although the results of Rhine and many similar parapsychologists were either statistically inconclusive or suspected of alteration and fraud, many people believe them to be well-scientifically substantiated fact, due in large part to works of fiction involving parapsychology (eg: much of the work of Steven King, such as “Firestarter”), and the verified fact that many government and military leaders believed them to be so, resulting in a strange “parapsychological arms race”.
  
• Poorly controlled personal experiments Many people conclude that they, or someone they know, can control die rolls due to positive results from experiments in which poor reporting, poor statistical techniques, and even slight of had are used. This is especially likely with people with inadequate or no mathematical education in statistical methods.
  

There is one well-proven technique for controlling die rolls – using “crooked dice”, dice that have been altered so that one or more faces are more likely than others to appear when rolled. Such techniques can’t really be called “unconscious”, however. ;)

 

If you’re prepared to use sound scientific methods, dice experiments are an excellent, readily accessible and inexpensive way to test claims such as Glotesqyphon. With a little imagination, it shouldn’t be too difficult to get around the difficulties of controlling subconscious decision making – for example, give the experimental subject a tasty treat for every “6” they roll, or a stun-gun shock to the rump. If the unconscious actually can determine which face will turn up in a die toss, something along these lines should promptly show a statistically dramatic effect :)

suppose you don't get many Tarot readers in here, do you?

You might be surprised, Glotesqyphon – you really might.

 

Though I think of myself mainly as a hard-nosed, nuts-and-bolts, math-educated, physics-loving, computer programming sort, I’ve long been interested in all sorts of psychology. I married a social worker by profession with similar interests, who for the year I knew here before we were a couple had a reputation as an eminent Tarot card reader. So, though I’ve never been the reader my wife is, I’ve a pretty good appreciation for the history and practical use of the decks.

 

Among non-supernaturalist Tarot card readers, the general belief is that the cards help querant and reader focus their conscious and unconscious thoughts through their evocative face art, prompting the querant to relate them to the story of their own life, and thus gain useful insights – similar to psychotherapeutic techniques such as “shuttling” in Gestalt therapy, but with prettier art. The technique can also be used, for example, while walking through an art gallery – though without the advantage of being able to take down, shuffle, and lay out the paintings ;)

 

PS: I’m guilty, I fear, of being off-topic in my dice lore musings. By way of making up for my sin, please see the 12033 in the watercooler for more on the subject of dice.

[Southtown]

Speaking of dice, and to toss myself directly under CraigD's bus, I play d20 as often as I can, and there are some "raw" dice sets. These dice aren't dipped/tumbled like normal ones are so the numbers/dots on the raw dice have no paint and the edges/corners are still sharp. The reason behind this is that tumbling destroys the symmetry and thus makes them unfair. I believe it too because there are dice that throw good (or seem to) and dice that throw like ****. The raw idea was thought up by the same guy that invented the d100 et al. Some of my raw sets had the numbers painted with a ball-point by the retailer, and I painted a few sets by hand. But now my crew is too busy with careers to play, though. Thanx Murphy.

 

Lou Zocchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Person - Louis Zocchi | The News is NowPublic.com

About Gamescience : AdvancingHordes.com

Precision-Edge

Gamestation.net Gamescience (Precision Dice)

[Buffy]

The typical die being an ensemble of more than 10[math]^{22}[/math] atoms, I don’t believe any quantum physical effects could be observed unless they were in a Bose–Einstein condensate state. This state occurs only at temperatures close to -273° C, way less than anything in contact with the hot, sweaty fingers of a gamer.

I'm including all the atoms going all the way up to the neurons of the gamer's brain as potential sources of macroscopic quantum mechanical effects.

 

As I've said many times here before: if you don't believe that there are such effects, you'll have a hard time explaining how atomic random number generators and Geiger counters work.

 

Parsing your quote carefully Craig, I don't think you disagree with me here...

 

Unpredictably human,

Buffy