Thread Rating:

odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 288
  • Posts: 7966
May 15th, 2019 at 1:40:42 AM permalink
Quote: DJGenius

Okay it’s a bit off topic, but I have to comment on this.

Modern science did indeed say that the universe always existed. If you do some serious reading about the Big Bang theory you will find that it was first theorized sometime in the 20s, not named until 1949, and not widely accepted until the discovery of CMB radiation in 1964, which was a key piece of supporting evidence. Until then scientific consensus was that the universe was “eternal”. It was not a fringe or pseudoscientific view, it was the generally accepted notion for the age of the universe.

I have even read that the reason why the Big Bang was initially rejected, and took a few decades to really catch on, was because it supported the “religious” idea that the universe suddenly “popped” into existence.

So to speak to the original point of the discussion... yes, of course science can be wrong. But at least science has the good sense to change its mind as new evidence comes to light.

It was believed to be so fundamental that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed that this meant the universe always existed. I'm not sure when it was realized that matter and energy convert - perhaps that took Einstein to figure out.

Anyway, it hasn't been that long since we've known a lot of stuff we take for granted as solid science now. I believe it was the 1930s before we knew there were other galaxies.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 147
  • Posts: 7103
May 15th, 2019 at 2:02:12 AM permalink
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that there may be new forms of math ,yet to be discovered, that will overcome the house edge?
That today's mathematicians do not yet have the technology to decode streaks and win limits? I'm not understanding where this is going.
My math skills are lacking so please keep your explanation simple.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 924
May 15th, 2019 at 5:37:47 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that there may be new forms of math ,yet to be discovered, that will overcome the house edge?
That today's mathematicians do not yet have the technology to decode streaks and win limits? I'm not understanding where this is going.
My math skills are lacking so please keep your explanation simple.



Yes and no. Quantum mechanics does not behave in a way that can easily be described by classical probability theory. Probabilities “add up” in different ways. It’s actually mind blowing. If you want to kill some time read up on Bell’s Inequality and the possible explanations including Clifford Algebra. (Note that the hits for Clifford Algebra disproving Bell’s Inequality are very “fringe”.)

On the other hand, I don’t see how any of this will help you beat the House Edge at the casino.

Also, to respond to the stuff on the prior pages, the known scientific evidence prior to the development of the Big Bang theory most certainly pointed to an eternal universe. Not fringe. And even today an eternal universe isn’t fringe. Just now called a multiverse. Though of course no good testable scientific hypotheses have been generated, so it’s not so much science as the belief of mainstream scientists.

If you are interested in the topic, highly recommend A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
DJGenius
DJGenius
Joined: Mar 5, 2010
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 26
May 15th, 2019 at 6:54:20 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that there may be new forms of math, yet to be discovered, that will overcome the house edge?



If you were talking to me then no, I am not suggesting that at all.

I was simply enjoying a side-track into the history of scientific thought. And thanks to whose who have offered more info on that topic too.

Not to put words in his mouth, but DeMango seems to have been implying, at the very least, that we should not totally reject unorthodox ideas out of hand since there is always a chance the current science has simply not figured it out yet.

I would tend to agree, and personally, I put all such ideas squarely in the “unproved, but not disproved” category.

But that’s a far way from proved too...

So any of these discussions about “vibes” and such, well, if they are to be taken seriously must have some sort of evidence to back them up. Until such time they are things that, at best, one could “suspect” to be the case, but not know.

The house edge on the other hand, is undeniable. Agreed?
"The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all." - Elf Queen Galadriel, teaching Frodo about the importance of blackjack basic strategy.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 924
Thanks for this post from:
DJGeniusPokerGrinderTomGbeachbumbabs
May 15th, 2019 at 7:15:50 AM permalink
Title of this thread is all wrong. Everyone knows there are three types of players: those that understand math and those that don’t.
Last edited by: unJon on May 15, 2019
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
DJGenius
DJGenius
Joined: Mar 5, 2010
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 26
May 15th, 2019 at 7:24:00 AM permalink
LOL. Of course, because a player who understands math is worth two that don’t.
"The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all." - Elf Queen Galadriel, teaching Frodo about the importance of blackjack basic strategy.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 147
  • Posts: 7103
May 15th, 2019 at 8:28:33 AM permalink
Quote: DJGenius

If you were talking to me then no, I am not suggesting that at all.

I was simply enjoying a side-track into the history of scientific thought. And thanks to whose who have offered more info on that topic too.

Not to put words in his mouth, but DeMango seems to have been implying, at the very least, that we should not totally reject unorthodox ideas out of hand since there is always a chance the current science has simply not figured it out yet.

I would tend to agree, and personally, I put all such ideas squarely in the “unproved, but not disproved” category.

But that’s a far way from proved too...

So any of these discussions about “vibes” and such, well, if they are to be taken seriously must have some sort of evidence to back them up. Until such time they are things that, at best, one could “suspect” to be the case, but not know.

The house edge on the other hand, is undeniable. Agreed?



With determination and proper hydration, no edge is insurmountable.

  • Jump to: