Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GlaziusF" data-source="post: 4480457" data-attributes="member: 74166">So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for?I'm betting no.It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot practically understand probabilities that low.You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800000 shot. You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800 shot. You _can_ practically accept, serially, five consecutive 1-in-10 shots and then a 1-in-8 shot, because all those odds are at least at or near the effective threshhold. You can, in fact, take actions between the various random events which could take them into account, as you could not do with two consecutive 1-in-100 shots and then a 1-in-80 shot.I have probably been incautious with my words, using &quot;rationally&quot; when what I really meant was &quot;realistically&quot; or &quot;practically&quot;. The brain is no different from what it was 1000 years ago. What's changed is the culture, and the process of acculturation; the knowledge we have and its relationship to other things we know. We do not think differently, but we do think about different things. &quot;Rational thought&quot; is just a coat of paint slapped on top of various peculiars of set theory. Well, there's your problem. You can't have rules for magic and not treat it like technology, because that's what technology _is_ - rules. Reliable transformations of one thing into another. 55 miles is one hour by car, that's technology. The majestic Danube River is 900 megawatts of hydroelectric power, that's technology. A human being's effort for one hour is 55 T-shirts but with this gizmo we can get it up to 70 - that, too, is technology. Rules that introduce a random element just turn magic into unreliable technology.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GlaziusF, post: 4480457, member: 74166"] So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for? I'm betting no. It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot [b]practically[/b] understand probabilities that low. You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800000 shot. You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800 shot. You _can_ practically accept, serially, five consecutive 1-in-10 shots and then a 1-in-8 shot, because all those odds are at least at or near the effective threshhold. You can, in fact, take actions between the various random events which could take them into account, as you could not do with two consecutive 1-in-100 shots and then a 1-in-80 shot. I have probably been incautious with my words, using "rationally" when what I really meant was "realistically" or "practically". The brain is no different from what it was 1000 years ago. What's changed is the culture, and the process of acculturation; the knowledge we have and its relationship to other things we know. We do not think differently, but we do think about different things. "Rational thought" is just a coat of paint slapped on top of various peculiars of set theory. Well, there's your problem. You can't have rules for magic and not treat it like technology, because that's what technology _is_ - rules. Reliable transformations of one thing into another. 55 miles is one hour by car, that's technology. The majestic Danube River is 900 megawatts of hydroelectric power, that's technology. A human being's effort for one hour is 55 T-shirts but with this gizmo we can get it up to 70 - that, too, is technology. Rules that introduce a random element just turn magic into [b]unreliable[/b] technology. [/QUOTE]

Verification