Brian: The right decision?

[winchester_royal]

Unpredictability, yes.
randomness, no.

lolwut

[Extended-Phenotype]

Unpredictability, yes.
randomness, no.

lolwut

Just thought I'd drag this barely entertaining conversation to a new level of boredom and argue the determinist point that randomness does not in fact exist.

[fruits]

Brian is a great manager unfortunately he was too loyal to his players ,he didn't realise the difference in class between a Championship ,player and one in the. Premiership. Loyalty is a great virtue but it doesn't, keep a team in the Premiership. Steve Coppell made the same mistake he was too loyal to the players who gained promotion. It was obvious to me during the Spurs home game that we needed to sign a minimum of three proven Premiership players,it was obvious Gorks,and most of the midfield were out of their depth .The January window was a disaster players were needed asap not at midnight on the last day of the window.
I am sure Brian learnt a lot from his visit to the Prem, he will be a much better manager , he did a great job for us unfortunately due
to his inexperiece we are back in the Championship. I know Allardyce is hated by many but he is so good at always improving his teams. am sure they will build on their position in the Prem and finish 7th or 8th this season.
Good luck Brian you did a fantastic job for 80%of your time with us. At Leeds be a bastard improve the team and if you take them up,get some seasoned toughened. Premiership players in, players will do the dirty on you be prepared to do the same to them.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I take, It back random does: however exist in. Fruits, punctuation.

[MouldyRoyal]

Agreed, I don't believe in luck in as much as I do believe in statistics.

As a data scientist (thats what they bill it as these days) i totally believe that luck/randomness plays a much
bigger part in life than people suspect.

Randomness? But of course. The problem, for me, is that some people talk about luck as though it is some sort of force or personality trait. Neither of which I like at all, and I guess neither would you.

In other words, the idea that someone would be better at rolling dice than someone else annoys me, but it's the way some people think. It may be luck that means someone wins the lottery or so on, but only is as much as an unlikely event has happened to a specific someone. The fact that someone has won it, is not luck at all.

Ergh, I am making no sense here.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Agreed, I don't believe in luck in as much as I do believe in statistics.

As a data scientist (thats what they bill it as these days) i totally believe that luck/randomness plays a much
bigger part in life than people suspect.

Randomness? But of course. The problem, for me, is that some people talk about luck as though it is some sort of force or personality trait. Neither of which I like at all, and I guess neither would you.

In other words, the idea that someone would be better at rolling dice than someone else annoys me, but it's the way some people think. It may be luck that means someone wins the lottery or so on, but only is as much as an unlikely event has happened to a specific someone. The fact that someone has won it, is not luck at all.

Ergh, I am making no sense here.

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

[creative_username_1]

in a complex multifaceted system like football games, where there are a million random factors influencing all players on both teams, and the ball, and the ref it has less effect than youd think and theyll all just even themselves out over a whole season


people make the mistake of taking each game as one occurence and saying 46 isnt enough to make randomness irrelevant.
when actually its each of the thousands of individual factors in each game that should be counted, meaning the sample size is much bigger.

no ones saying it isnt a factor, just saying its not the determining factor over a season,
and it affects both sides equally over the time scales/number of individual random events involved in a football season,

Don't have any any evidence to suggest how luck/beneficial randomness would be distributed. I would assume it would be normally
distributed amongst teams rather than cancelled out as you've assumed/stated.

Always reluctant to get involved in any argument that can't be proved/tested

[creative_username_1]

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? So you're going to need information on every particle in the universe to be accurate and at particle level there are elements of probability (I know very little on the physics of this, i'm sure someone on here does).

[melonhead]

in a complex multifaceted system like football games, where there are a million random factors influencing all players on both teams, and the ball, and the ref it has less effect than youd think and theyll all just even themselves out over a whole season


people make the mistake of taking each game as one occurence and saying 46 isnt enough to make randomness irrelevant.
when actually its each of the thousands of individual factors in each game that should be counted, meaning the sample size is much bigger.

no ones saying it isnt a factor, just saying its not the determining factor over a season,
and it affects both sides equally over the time scales/number of individual random events involved in a football season,

Don't have any any evidence to suggest how luck/beneficial randomness would be distributed. I would assume it would be normally
distributed amongst teams rather than cancelled out as you've assumed/stated.

Always reluctant to get involved in any argument that can't be proved/tested

cancelled out between teams, as the randomness will be distrbuted with a normal distribution across all the teams involved

[melonhead]

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? .

id imagine so.

its just that to obtain all the information youd need some sort of super ridiculous super computer

[creative_username_1]

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? .

id imagine so.

its just that to obtain all the information youd need some sort of super ridiculous super computer

did you read the next sentence.

[creative_username_1]

cancelled out between teams, as the randomness will be distrbuted with a normal distribution across all the teams involved

I don't agree. If one of us is prepared to put the research in then hairy muff. If you want to get the last word in on this, be my guest

[Extended-Phenotype]

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? So you're going to need information on every particle in the universe to be accurate and at particle level there are elements of probability (I know very little on the physics of this, i'm sure someone on here does).

As Heisenberg wrote:
"The invisible elementary particle of modern physics does not have the property of occupying space any more than it has properties like color and solidity. Fundamentally, it is not a material structure in space and time but only a symbol that allows the laws of nature to be expressed in especially simple form."

Quantum mechanics is not random, even if it is the way in which we use it to make our calculations. The Schrodinger equation of QM is totally deterministic: the wave equation, which describes a quantum system, evolves through that equation in a deterministic, non-random, way.

The only limit to how precise your predictions are is how well you can measure things, and something being unmeasurable does not make it random.

Thread derailed.

[creative_username_1]

The roll of a dice isn't random. It's governed by determinable factors such as spin, speed, impact, which direction the dice is 'facing' to begin with, air-resistance, surface consistency and so on.

Winning the lottery isn't random either.

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? So you're going to need information on every particle in the universe to be accurate and at particle level there are elements of probability (I know very little on the physics of this, i'm sure someone on here does).

As Heisenberg wrote:
"The invisible elementary particle of modern physics does not have the property of occupying space any more than it has properties like color and solidity. Fundamentally, it is not a material structure in space and time but only a symbol that allows the laws of nature to be expressed in especially simple form."

Quantum mechanics is not random, even if it is the way in which we use it to make our calculations. The Schrodinger equation of QM is totally deterministic: the wave equation, which describes a quantum system, evolves through that equation in a deterministic, non-random, way.

The only limit to how precise your predictions are is how well you can measure things, and something being unmeasurable does not make it random.

Thread derailed.

depends who you believe then....and how you can use it IRL

[melonhead]

So if you have all the available information you are able to determine how the dice/die lands? .

id imagine so.

its just that to obtain all the information youd need some sort of super ridiculous super computer

did you read the next sentence.

tbf you 100% dont need to be in command of all the information, or have the ability to test the idea.

its pretty clear that since the movement of the dice is governed by a number of interacting forces(detailed above)
that it will only need a certain level of computing power to determine how those forces will interact to produce the completed roll.
we dont have that power at our fingertips, and we dont have to, cos its safe to say that with the required ammount of processing power it will defo be possible

[melonhead]

cancelled out between teams, as the randomness will be distrbuted with a normal distribution across all the teams involved

I don't agree. If one of us is prepared to put the research in then hairy muff. If you want to get the last word in on this, be my guest

dont need to, for the reasons i just stated

[Extended-Phenotype]

As Heisenberg wrote:
"The invisible elementary particle of modern physics does not have the property of occupying space any more than it has properties like color and solidity. Fundamentally, it is not a material structure in space and time but only a symbol that allows the laws of nature to be expressed in especially simple form."

Quantum mechanics is not random, even if it is the way in which we use it to make our calculations. The Schrodinger equation of QM is totally deterministic: the wave equation, which describes a quantum system, evolves through that equation in a deterministic, non-random, way.

The only limit to how precise your predictions are is how well you can measure things, and something being unmeasurable does not make it random.

Thread derailed.

depends who you believe then....and how you can use it IRL

- Not really. Like God, the onus of proof is on people claiming randomness exists. Like God, they haven't been able to.

- It is 'Real Life'.

[SPARTA]

So, while Brian McBirdmott weighs up moves for Noel and Stephen Hunt, we sign Bridge and Drenthe. Anyone still unsure he should have gone?

[AirRaidSiren]

So, while Brian McBirdmott weighs up moves for Noel and Stephen Hunt, we sign Bridge and Drenthe. Anyone still unsure he should have gone?

[winchester_royal]

we sign Bridge and Drenthe.

Still can't get over this