It doesn't matter if it's random or not, so long as the person making the call knows its orientation. It could always be heads up, or it could always be heads down, or it could be completely random. All that matters is what is known.

Okay, let's modify the experiment. We're only interested in the tosses that do not land on edge. :rolleyes:

The rest shouldn't matter, provided it is a "fair" coin (defined as a coin that will land heads or tails with equal probability if no additional information is given to observers (and flippers).

You're on the right track. It's the physics involved in the flip that allow someone to make the correct call 51% of the time. You're looking too deep though.

The scientists that did the studying had to use high speed photography to observe a boatload of flips before they understood what was going on.

Your explanation is probably more accurate than mine. I didn't much care for my QM class. Nonetheless, I maintain my assertion that just because we can only observe it as random or probabilistic is not evidence that there is not an underlying order that we don't yet understand.

In fact, chaotic behavior is sometimes mistaken as random.

Can you elaborate a bit on this? I see chaos as random.

I think that chaotic behavior would be something like what you get when you break a rack in billiards. The balls behave chaotically, but they are governed by the rules of physics and their actions could be predicted if you accurately measured all the factors.

Chaotic events are those that, as CWT points out, are predictable but horrendously sensitive to their initial conditions. The weather is probably the best example which is what makes long-term conditions specific to a location so unpredictable -- the smallest variation upstream can change them completely.

deterministic chaotic systems are systems that have simple and well defined rules, but where small changes magnify rapidly to produce large deviations over time. the result is that prediction of end-states becomes highly dependent on the degree of accuracy of your measurement of the initial state. in the pool table example, a variation of a fraction of a degree in the initial angle of the cue ball (even ignoring variations in force and spin), can produce very large deviations in the final arrangement of the table, because deviations in the initial angle of impact tend to magnify over subsequent impacts. the laws of inertia are simple, but sensitive. this isn't random in the sense of random that you're looking for - it's random in the statistical sense of 'unpredictable'. literally, you can not ever predict the outcome of a pool shot unless you can measure the initial pool-cue/cue-ball contact with an infinite degree of precision.

but let's boil this down to the real debate here, which is spiritual in nature. is the universe clockwork mechanics (in which case we are mere clockwork dolls winding our inevitable way down entropic paths), or is there some force outside the deterministic mechanisms of the universe (doesn't matter whether you call it randomness or a soul) that saves our existence from being pre-ordained?

nor is it evidence that there is an underlying order.

The fringes of random occurrences
 

No, no. Instead, let’s say we’re only interested in the coin tosses that do land on edge. Or in freakishly large waves at sea (long considered a myth or a sailors’ exaggeration, until satellite photographs revealed that they were more common than once thought). Or two bullets from opposing sides colliding in mid-air (which they actually did during one Civil War battle).

I think that sort of fringe manifestation of randomness is far more interesting.

Ok, how do we go about predicting the odds?

True. I didn't claim it was. I just pointed out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Personally, I believe a Unified Field Theory will eventually be found, eliminating probability functions from advanced study of particle behavior, even if they are still used for the same reasons that Newton's equations are still used despite Relativity Theory giving more accurate results.

faith is a good thing. :) but it's worth questioning what leverage you get from this particular article of faith... why would you rather have a deterministic world than a non-deterministic one?

Who says that a unified theory means that the universe is deterministic? Couldn't a unified theory help describe how a soul controls the matter it's contained in, or even what a soul is, without requiring the soul to be pure mechanism?

I'm guessing you don't play much pool (not an attack, just an observation). The break shot is far better understood than you might think. Very good players can get pretty consistent spreads, break after break. It's not uncommon to see shortstops and pros sink the same ball (by position in the rack, not necessarily the same number) into the same pocket a substantial proportion, albeit not necessarily the majority of the time, especially in nine-ball, where sinking the nine on the break wins the game. Heck, even I can get the eight ball within a few inches of the same side pocket a decent percentage of the time (when I'm trying; since it doesn't win the game I don't typically try unless I'm just messing around) on a tight eight ball rack, and I'm nowhere near shortstop or pro level.

I'm not saying the balls always end up in the exact same positions every time, but the positioning is consistent enough to not be considered random or chaotic. OTOH, when bangers (as opposed to players) play, almost every shot could be considered chaotic.

A common break in 14.1 results in all the balls returning to their original positions (or very near) in the rack. (Note that 14.1 players typically break very softly, and are concerned with the end location of every single ball.)

For non-break shots made by top players, rarely will any ball end up more than a few inches from where they intended/anticipated.

The pool table is the single best math and classical physics lab I've ever come across, for students from kindergarten to grad school. The physics of the game are well understood by those who have taken the effort to learn them. There are indeed a lot of variables involved, but better players are able to keep most of them static with consistent practice and play.

The underlying property of a Unified Field Theory (aka Theory Of Everything) is that it can be used to predict or explain anything and everything, including its own discovery.

I think the chances are pretty low that UFT (or TOE) is discovered within my lifetime. But I think the chances are pretty high that it will eventually be discovered. (I also believe that someday there will exist a human culture that understands how to divide by zero, but I don't anticipate ever acquiring that understanding myself.)

It's not a matter of preferring a deterministic world over a non-deterministic world. I simply believe that the universe is deterministic, even if we don't fully understand it.

if the theory describes what the soul is, then the soul is deterministic; if the theory doesn't, the the theory is useless, because its outcomes are predicated on something it can't define or control.

please notice that the skill here involves good control over the cue (reducing variations in the initial state) and a soft touch (which minimizes the time that chaotic effects have to manifest themselves). and even with those qualities, there is visible deviation from shot to shot. now imagine a table without pockets, and without friction, so that the system was ongoing - even with the best players, the table would be complete chaos after a minute or so.

and I used to win money at pool. ;)

I have to say, this is something (one of several things) that annoys me about science. somehow we've gotten it into our heads that we can make evaluative statements about the world without paying any attention to the evaluations we've made, because we've couched it in scientific terms. it's like that killer from "No Country for Old Men" who keeps going on about how everything in the universe has led up to that one moment when a coin gets flipped to determine whether or not he kills someone.

I don't know whether the world is ultimately deterministic or not, but I am pretty darned sure we have to act as though it isn't.