Are we actually just living in a dream? Is nothing real according to science chad Kurzesagt?
Are we actually just living in a dream? Is nothing real according to science chad Kurzesagt?
Are we actually just living in a dream? Is nothing real according to science chad Kurzesagt?
are you retarded?
How am I retarded? It could be true, that we're just a dream of the universe. Our actions and existence represents the universe itself.
yeah he's retarded
Is a brain popping into existence more likely than an entire universe though?
A universe only needs a large amount of matter put in small space to create a big bang that can then go onto have brains through emergent phenomenon.
A brain is highly organised however even if it has less matter.
Planets are massive! A human brain is far more likely to pop into existence! Entropy? What's that?
Entropy is a statistical law, not a physical one. Over near infinite period of time there are bound to be fluctuations
Hey OP! Why don't you fuck back to your intellectually ascended Boltzmann's asshole now and let us retards discuss meaningful problems which actually have determinable answers you fucking retard.
Even if it is, you don't need to concern your npc brain with it since im clearly the main character
>Is nothing real according to science chad Kurzesagt?
Maybe watch the video and find out.
>science discovers Mentalism
Kybalion, Corpus Hermeticum
>your chances of winning the lottery increase by having more lottery tickets
I mean, how am I supposed to believe anything after stating a bold face lie?
wait, that statement's not wrong anon
Partially, but it's misleading, each individual lottery ticket has the exact same chance of being the winning ticket, buying more does not increase the chance of each individual ticket winning.
You have a greater portion of the pool/stake/pie/raffle by buying more tickets, but your tickets have an equal chance of being selected as the person who only buys one ticket
You are truly disgusting.
Sorry that I find fault in your teams youtube video anon, have your marketing department talk with research and development to make sure that your videos are decent quality
Does buying more tickets increase your chances of winning the lottery, assuming the lottery is fair?
No.
If there are 1,000,000,000 tickets
I buy 1 ticket
You buy 999,999,999 tickets
My 1 ticket has just as good a chance of being selected as your 999,999,999 tickets
This is why the lottery is called the 'stupid tax'
Because people don't realize that buying more tickets doesn't increase their chances
it does increase the chances, but it also proportionally increases your expenses
It increases the proportion of tickets you have
>each ticket still has the same chance of being selected
1/1,000,000,000
Do you see what I am saying to you?
If you buy 999,999,999 tickets out a billion, your odds of winning aren't 999,999,999/1,000,000,000
yeah each ticket has the same chance of being selected, but if (you) have two tickets you have twice the chance of winning.
Please refrain from directly talking to the retard, or referencing it without dehumanizing it. If you fail to do this, you are part of the problem.
>the work of the Lord is never done
The lottery fallacy, also known as the gambler's fallacy, is the belief that causally independent events are causally related. This fallacy arises from Henry E. Kyburg Jr.'s concept of a fair 1,000-ticket lottery that has only one winning ticket. If this much is known about the execution of the lottery, it is rational to accept that some ticket will win.However, if an event is considered "very likely," it is not necessarily highly probable or inevitable.
>anti-gambling thread now
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
Suppose that an event is considered "very likely" only if the probability of it occurring is greater than 0.99. On those grounds, it is presumed to be rational to accept the proposition that ticket 1 of the lottery will not win. Since the lottery is fair, it is rational to accept that ticket 2 will not win either. Indeed, it is rational to accept for any individual ticket i of the lottery that ticket i will not win. However, accepting that ticket 1 will not win, accepting that ticket 2 will not win, and so on until accepting that ticket 1,000 will not win entails that it is rational to accept that no ticket will win, which entails that it is rational to accept the contradictory proposition that one ticket wins and no ticket wins.
The lottery paradox was designed to demonstrate that three attractive principles governing rational acceptance lead to contradiction:
>It is rational to accept a proposition that is very likely true.
>It is irrational to accept a proposition that is known to be inconsistent and is jointly inconsistent.
>If it is rational to accept a proposition A and it is rational to accept another proposition A', it is rational to accept A and A'.
yes but you have two tickets. Doesn't make the game any more profitable though
>My 1 ticket has just as good a chance of being selected as your 999,999,999 tickets
Unbelievable stuff. This is the level of the "people" who frequent LULZ in 2023.
You missed the point anon and projected a wojak.
There's nothing more I can personally say, I'll let my words stand for themselves and let some more anons give you additional (you)s
@15741536
These animals simply aren't human. Sterilizing them by force is morally neutral.
>6-sided die
>numbers 1 and 2 are assigned to me
>number 3 is assigned to Retard Extraordinaire
>the die is rolled, the number is called
>whoever has one of their numbers called wins
>Retard Extraordinaire insists that his chances of winning are the same as mine
Why are "people" this dumb allowed to have any kind of education?
>each side has a 16.6% chance of being rolled onto
>each time the die is rolled the chance for each side remains 16.6%
>roll 3 seven times in a row
>anon calls me a retard three times before calling his mom
The questions is if it is a disjunction union.
If you know one ticket MUST win... but that is not the way a lottery works.
I will have to learn more about a disjunction union
@15741581
You see? It is rational, moral and necessary to sterilize these "people".
@15741586
@15741590
>this is the intellectual level of the average leftist atheist.
>can't even properly @ someone on 4chins
First day on the internet Timmy?
>how am I supposed to live without my (you)?
@15741596
>the single-celled organism is losing its mind with impotent rage
>single called organisms with a better understanding of statistics than you
Eat an all meat diet with rusty nails and crushed up seashells so your poop cuts your anus when it comes out you trognig.
can someone please explain to a retard if I'm more likely to win if I buy more tickets.
Well, if you buy more tickets (i'm going to maliciously assume you mean arcade tickets you use to gamble with) you get more chances to roll the dice, so you are more likely to win.
so is buying more tickets a good strategy?
yes.
You are just as likely to win the first time as you are the second and third time, so
>no
>Midwit math brain confuses himself on LULZ by creating schizophrenic conditions for the concept of winning at gambling.
>winning at gambling
Good luck with that