October 16th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Something on the lines of the lack of a pattern being a pattern?
On that, I agree with you. But, applying pattern to something seemingly random to a point where it has a very precise, predictable, behavior? that's another story.
And surely there's no reason to take into account all the factors...consider the rolling dice for example:If you only consider a few 'primary' factors like how the person threw it,the hardness factor etc..you'd be on your way to getting a first degree 'simulation' of your model(throwing the dice in this case)..then,depending on your requirements,you could either make do with your present model or make another simulation taking into account a few more 'secondary' factors and thus getting a higer degree of accuracy in predicting the outcome..ofcourse,to be entirely sure you'd have to make an infinite number of simulations..but you'd only need to get a certain amount so that you could get the accuracy to reasonable proportions,thereby reducing the number of choices..and then trying them all or guessing(anyone think this can be extended to that password idea?)
And yes,I agree..this is fast turning into great cosmos material lol