Star Trek

"The only real thing that you say is that it does not occur in nature. It does in quantum mechanics. The proof for this is the uncertainty principle you can not disagree with that. Or do you?"

I don’t know enough about the topic to say in detail or to the point but any event that happens in nature should be observable so the uncertainty principle must be wrong.


No event can be predicted without knowing the processes of that event, the causes; and no event happens without a cause, which necessitate that event. So no event has the possibility of occuring in any other ratio than 1:1. One outcome, one possible outcome.

Going back to the lottery example for a second. So if you ask can you win the lottery? The answer is yes, because it’s possible. Actually the two sentences mean the same thing, (is it possible - can you). Will you win the lottery. Unknown. Is it possible to know to any degree if you will win the lottery if you don’t know the causes of the pick? The answer is no.

I have to stop using their terms. Things are not predicted, they are observed.

Ok, so you asked why don’t all the great scientists say this or that. Well logically if they aren’t right they are not great scientists. Look for the knowledge not for pretention.

Probably or likely are things that have meanings but in a everyday sense. It means that something will usually happen, and this is the same way Aristotle defines probability. That something usually happens; but to try to quantify doesn’t work.

The only type of situation I can think of where this applies is when you have to choose from a group of same or different items without knowing what they are. Like if there were 10 boxes and 9 of them were empty is it more or less likely to choose a empty box? You know..

Likelihood . . . .
Now we finally can agree that they are the same thing.

Does it exist; do the results conform to a given ratio?

Probability never said that it has to be right on the money. Its about what must likely will happen.

Does it exist? We have to use it for several problems in real life problems if its economics, math, science, engineering, . . . .

If it did not or is not real then its like saying that its not true that the likelihood of wining the lottery is false. If we look at the lottery for example we know that its basically a miracle that you one. 1 versus a million or what every the odds are for a given power ball ticket. We use the word likelihood in this to say that most likely you will not win the power ball or the likelihood is very low. We can give it a ratio showing that also. When its very high and no one won and now its even higher and even more people are buying tickets then the news might say that because of the # of tickets that are getting sold right now the likelihood is that most likely someone will win.

The ratio does not have to be exact. The dice do you agree Q1 that when you roll 2 dies then the likelihood when you role several times it will land on 7 the most and the #s by it (6 & 8)?

If I gave a ratio of the likelihood it is correct and the best example and proof of that is geometric probability. Do you agree with that?

Cause and effect, we cannot allways say whats going to happen we are not Q or God and we don’t know eveything, but we can predict what happens thats what hypotheses are about. Do you agree with that?

Please answer my 3 above questions.

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com