Quote:

---

"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

---

I cant accept this.. the dice throw is a good example of randomness over time. Chaos theory predicts that any complex iterative predictive system becomes no better than a wild guess. Over time, it would indeed to be impossible to correctly predict every dice throw.

Chance as we think of it depends on the viewers information, and it is impossible to have ALL information, therefore chance exists.

" Chaos theory predicts that any complex iterative predictive system becomes no better than a wild guess. "

It is right that the theory of chaos cast a shadow on determinism.
I myself was supporting the same opinion in an other thread.
However it is not applicable in this case.

A chaotic system is something in continuos evolution
The current state of the system is influenced by the previous one and it influences the next one
You have used correctly the term "iterative"
In this situation, just in some cases...not alwayes !!! , the system becomes a wild guess

The throw of the dice is completely a different case
It is not "iterative" because at any throw you reset the initial conditions
Consequently any throw is a stand alone case which is not influence and does not influence the other throws

"it is impossible to have ALL information, therefore chance exists."

You also confuse the popular meaning of the word "chance" which we use in our normal dayly conversations and the scientific term

Do you seriously think that Heisemberg and Bohr on one side and Einstein on the other side have been discussing for years wether it possible or not , to have all the informations ?

The issue is much more deeper and it has nothing to do with the word "chance" as you use it

Determinism (Einstein) is in favour of the :

cause -> effect theory

The quantum theory (Bohr - heisemberg) is against

If an "event" occurs ,we all, not only Einstein, assume that there is an "explanation" for that event
Maybe such explanation is unknown but , we beleive , that this explanation (cause) must exist
If we throw a dice and we get 6 instead of 1 , we assume that this result was due to the fact that we threw the dice with a certain force rather than with a slight different one...
Maybe the force suitable for getting the 6 and the force for getting the 1 are unknown but , we think, they must exist

This is what we assume and we are right as long as we are talking about the macro world

Eistein thought that determinism must be true also for the atomic world
Hisemberg and Bohr said : No
The principle : cause - effect is not applicable to the sub atomic world
the sub atomic world is a pure lottery
It is not a matter of lack of information
It is a real lottery

Eistein replied that quantum phisics is a bloody mistake
but he was wrong

I hope now it is clear

We dont' know wh

Quote:

---

Let's throw a dice

---

Sure, I've got special dice here I bought at "Las Vegas" that will roll a 7 or 11 every time. Perfect for a game of craps.
http://www.ildado.com/craps_rules.html

Of course you play with your own regular dice.
Actually, I did do this to somebody and he was freaking out!!! Because every time I rolled a 7 or 11 and won!!! EVERY TIME GUARANTEED!!! Of course I explained it later to him that my dice were special. Haha! but he thought at the time that random chance favored lucky old me.

The point is, what what we may perceive as random, actually might not be so random...lol

Don't want to be rude in any way, but I know what's meant with 'chance' as the scientific word, that is what I was talking about all along. As I told you before I disagreed with Einstein's view and agree with the quantum mechanics theory, and as we both know Einstein's view has been discredited anyway. What exactly are you trying to tell us? I am talking about the scientific 'Chance'. The dice example is just one of many examples I can come up with. I know Einstein and others were thinking in events, causes, reactions. What exactly makes you think the dice example is any different, apart from being slightly less complicated perhaps?

Quote:

---

The point is, what what we may perceive as random, actually might not be so random...lol

---

The problem lies in knowledge in combination with the factor time, so even if we knew everything, it would still be random enough to never be able to tell the outcome every single time.

Cheers

it's impossible to predict the outcome of throwing a dice

Can you be so kind to explain to me how, where, why and when did you come to such conclusion ?
Of course it is possible, why not ?
If you throw a dice using a sophisticated device which is calibrated for applying an initial speed with an high degree of accuracy ,then you will get the predicted result : 1...100...1000...1000000000 times
Human beings are not able to win at Las Vegas for the simple reasons that none of us , is able to tune our actions with the necessary accuracy

Probabality is always related to the finite predictive methods we use. It simply is not possible to be 100% certain of anything in the universe--there is no way to be certain, that's the trouble with randomness. Take this number sequence:

8 8 8 8 8 8 8

That doesnt seem random, but it very well could be.

Just as this sequence

1093739503747

may not be random at all.

Matt and Phemox

Now I really quit, this discussion does not really make any sense
I even suspected that you have been pulling my legs

If you are right then some thousands scientists from Galileo up to Einstein were wrong
Do you realize it ?