>>13609903>If all sequences are impossible, how do you get a sequence when you flip 100 coins?It's a new sequence that didn't exist before. All sequences that existed before you flipped were impossible to get. Sequences are mental constructs. Like works of Shakespeare, they did not exist before someone created them. If you time travelled to ancient greece and started asking people about Hamlet, nobody would have any idea what you're talking about, since Hamlet didn't exist in the time of ancient greece.
>Why would I have to give you a specific sequence? Because presumably giving me all the sequences would be too hard. There are simply too many possibilities.
>And you already admitted your consideration is irrelevantMy consideration has no impact over what occurs, correct.
>Exist where? In the Platonic realm?Anywhere. It was simply not a thing. It only became a thing after you finished flipping the coin.
>Proof?Follows from the fact that all sequences are impossible to get.
>Proof?Our computers are simply too slow. It's not hard to do the back-of-the-envelope calculation.
>You already conceded. Too bad.Conceded what?
>No, you claimed it follows a Gaussian distribution with no justification.I gave you one possible justification: when you make a diagram of the trials it looks like a Gaussian distribution.
>>13609909>Then jumping is not like coin flipping.For both there are many choices how to model it, which assign different probabilities to the same events, with there being no empirical test to distinguish the models.
>The coin doesn't have to be fair for it to be possible to get 100 heads.Yeah, if it's heads on both sides it would be quite easy to get 100 heads. Or if it was somehow manufactured to land on heads with a very very high frequency. But we're talking about regular coins here, not specifically manufactured ones.
