Common sense ( mine and yours ) claims that "chance" is simply a lack of information
In the last century famous scientists such as Laplace would agree with you and me
Even Einstein belong to our club

The point is that modern phisics claim that you and me , Laplace and Einstein are wrong

The quantum phisics and , partially, the theory of chaos, claim that chance does exist

Is it something against the common sense ?
Yes it is
Modern phisics has banned common sense since a long time
Atomic phisics is just pure math, supported of course by lab evidence

My whole point is trying to say that "chance" only exists when you don't know everything.

As for a human reacting the same, I know this will never ever happen. But that's not the point. The point is, if true randomness exists in the human mind it won't. Otherwise it will.

Think about it. Unless a computer has a random programming, we can predict exactly what it will do. Therefore it is possible to predict what a human does, just not humanly possible.

But, obviously according to quantum physics real chance does exist. I guess that proves my theory wrong.

So far this randomness has affected humans. Scientists have spent hours explaining this in documents and books, and thousands of people have read this. Ofc, we don't know that much. Randomness might only appear to be; there might be unknown factors affecting it.

[quoteLet's throw a dice .. there's really no way to predict the outcome always correctly for an infinite amount of times[/i
Cheers

---

Why not ?
In practice it might actually be extremly hard to solve a problem like that.
You must write a complicated differential equation, in theory it is rather simple
If you simplify it , just a little bit, for example ignoring the friction of the air or the bouncing of the dice on the surface then it becomes a normal problem
I have been assigned similar ones at polytechnics

Simplifying won't work here ... All variables influence the outcome, you can't simply ignore half of the factors ...

Furthermore, like I said, there are factors that may vary along the way of throwing the dice ... How could you know those factors and their variation? You can't.

I'm not a fan of the chaos theory, but let's say for a moment you agree with the possibility of a butterfly causing a huricane, then those kind of factors should be known too. There's simply too much that you can't ever know.

Quote:

---

complicated differential equation

---

You can't even write this differential equation down if you don't know ALL what influences the dice.

I don't see how chance could be the outcome of a simple differential equation.

Cheers

Hello

Sorry dont be offended, I know nothing about your scientific background but ,beleive me , what you said it does not make any sense, unless I completely misunderstood your thought

Classic mechanics claims :

If you know all the initial parameters than you can calculate at any future time the position, the orientation, the linear speed ,the angular speed of the dice
"In practice " it can be extremely difficult or even impossible but "In theory" it is possible

If some parameters are unknown than you can get just an approx result
The simplification of the model which I proposed , is a normal proceedure in phisics and engineering

Do you think that Newton took into account all the parameters to calculate the orbit of the planet around the sun ?

Quantum mechanics claims

It is not possible to know all the parameters
If you know the exact position of an electron than you can not calculate the exact velocity of the electron at the same istant and viceversa
Same consideration as far as all the "complemetary" parameters are concerned
It is not just a matter of lack of information
you can use the most sophisticated measuring system and the more powerful computer but even "In theory " not only "In practice" some parameters will remain unknown


In conclusion

Classic mechanics claims that "in theory " universe is deterministic
"In practice " a system can be so complex that you will never be able to gather all the informations
Howevere "in theory " chance does not exist, what we call "chance " is just a lack of information

Quantum mechanics claim that even "In theory" universe is not "deterministic"
You will never be in condition to collect all the informations
"Chance" is a reality, even though it is ruled by the statistics

Einstein beleived that for handling complex system but the reality must be "deterministic"
this is the meaning of the famous sentence "God does not play dices"

However Einsten has been proved to be wrong

Even though it is hard to accept , "Chance" is s reality

Statistics is not just a useful math tool for describing the sub atomic world
Statistics is "THE REALITY"

Wow.............

I'm not offended. What exactly doesn't make much sense to you? Perhaps we are thinking quite the same things here. I think chance does exist. I think you can't known all influencing factors, like quantum mechanics says. Therefor 'chance' makes sense. That's my line of thought in a nutshell.

Quote:

---

"In practice " it can be extremely difficult or even impossible

---

Impossible things are quite useless I think. I mean, an aproximation might be very very useful, don't get me wrong, but when it comes to chance, this won't help much, you could still predict the outcome wrong, because you made some assumptions for the (more or less) unknown factors.

That way you'll be having a chance on your predicted chance's outcome, making the whole thing rather pointless.

When it comes to accuracy, don't you think it would matter bigtime not knowing all the factors? Having said that though, I don't think Newton's theory suffered from inaccuracy (if it even was inaccurate, I honestly don't know, but if he did leave out certain factors, it may have been not that accurate(?). )

I definately agree with the quantum mechanics's conclusion.

Problem with the 'classic mechanics' is that they assume the possibility of being able to know 'everything' in the ideal situation, in theory. This is not possible in practise, and even in theory you wouldn't be able to write down all x-factors, unless you write one big 'x' for every factor that's unknown as if it's one big one. This would make such an theory quite strange. Simplification is very common amongst scientific theories, I know this, but in this case I do not quite understand why they wish to simplify something, especially when everything matters so much.

Leave out the airfriction's influence for example, would the theory about the dice still be accurate enough? As in, being able to 100% predict what the outcome will be, every time? Personally, I don't think so. It's not about formulas being inaccurate or using approximations, it's about the result. When you don't know all factors, why pretend? It's no critics towards science or the scientific system of simplifying things, not at all. However I simply think there are some problems with that approach with this subject.

Cheers

I get the impression that you mix up science, a sort of nichilist philosphy, literature and little bit of Freud, too
Unfortunatly they do not get along

"Leave out the airfriction's influence for example, would the theory about the dice still be accurate enough? As in, being able to 100% predict what the outcome will be, every time? "

It is not a matter of taste or personal opinions , as you seem to beleive.
There are branches of phisics, math, and enegineering dealing with these issues such as "the theory of errors" or "The theory of modelling"

Ok , this is my last post about this issue ,then I give it up

You , same as a lot of other people, confuse the dayly meaning of a word and its scientific meaning.

In one of your previous post you said:

"Let's throw a dice .. there's really no way to predict the outcome always correctly for an infinite amount of times"

Such claim is completely false


- Our brain is not a super computer capable of calculating a differential equation on the fly

- Our body is not a super robot capable of calibrating with an extremely high accuracy : Position, angulation, Force...when throwing a dice

- Our senses are not super sensors capable of measuring pressure humidity etc with an extremely high accuracy


This is the reason why, in our dayly life, we claim that the throw of a dice is "Chance"
But in the reality it is not a chance
The throw of a dice, in the reality, is a "deterministic event"

Suppose now that you shoot an electron instead of the dice

Quantum theory claims that that such event is "A chance"
It is really a chance not just because of the limitation of our calculation and measuring systems

Please dont' tell me that such claim is intuitive

It is so anti_intuitive that Eistein said it is a nonsense

But Eistein has been proved to be wrong

End of the story as far as I am concerned