View Single Post
Old Feb 18, 2011, 2:10pm   #12
killcrazy
Apex Predator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 10,307
Reputation: 8118
killcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond reputekillcrazy has a reputation beyond repute
This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile! This member received this PokerTips Exclamation Mark for one of a number of reasons: blogging, winning a contest, contributing great content, etc. Keep an eye out for chances to receive one of these by your profile!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilermaker View Post
I would agree that it doesn't "feel" like it can possibly be the right theory
it's not really a matter of "feel" per se.

Quote:
and yet the results of using it work so well.
well, here we disagree. nature is not probabilistic. it merely appears that way because of incomplete information. like cards, or dice, or anything else for which probabilities may be ascribed in the macroscopic universe, probabilities exist only in the gaps between information.

Quote:
Still some consequences that arise from the random aspects of the theory are unsettling, even though they are experimentally verifiable.
i'm not sure what you're saying here? example?

Kc
__________________
"Blah blah blah KC is right" - Ozone
killcrazy est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!