Player Watch Rupert Wills (Delisted 2020)

[sr36]

I’m not sure that’s really what the uncertainty principle says. Also, its not really true that most scientists think we live in a simulation. That’s just one theory of a pretty wacky group of physicists.

Having said that, if you’re right, then maybe Collingwood won the GF last year after all! I’ll rejoice in that!

Until disproven, I'm going to hold onto that theory.

 

[Hazz]

And if you can't handle people criticising your opinion posts maybe bigfooty isn't for you either?

Yeah, now I cannot tell if you’re being sarcastic at my sarcastic post...

But just in case you’re semi serious - The post you quoted was my first on this thread for a while. Nobody criticised my opinion before the post you quoted as I had not given my opinion.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Until disproven, I'm going to hold onto that theory.

You mean we didn’t win the GF?

Geees, so that thing where I watch the game and with a few minutes to spare, I say stuff it, I’m celebrating, is all for naught?

Well that’s very disappointing.

 

[Thatsmyname]

I’m not sure that’s really what the uncertainty principle says. Also, its not really true that most scientists think we live in a simulation. That’s just one theory of a pretty wacky group of physicists.

Having said that, if you’re right, then maybe Collingwood won the GF last year after all! I’ll rejoice in that!

That's exactly what it says, it takes us from the comfortable clockwork universe of Newton that could be predicted if all the variables were known to not even being able to tell the speed and position (simultaneously) of an electron, hence no objective truth, certainly none that is verifiable. Nature seems to have this bizarre way of hiding itself from us, try to measure the speed of a particle and you can't know it's location, find it's location and you can't measure it's speed. Approach the speed of light and the universe will literally slow down time to stop you achieving it. Observe a wave function and it collapses into particles, stop observing it and it melts back into a probability wave. Nature doesn't want us to know her.
Most scientists accept the math even if they don't accept the theory of why there would be far more sims than real universes, we still have to see if quantum computers give us the processing power to pull it off, but if we can then it's possible, and if it's possible then out of all the trillions of sims it's highly unlikely we are the real one, it's just the odds.
No that last one is the many worlds theory and rest assured we won the flag in many many many universes last year, some of them were even real.

 

[Somebody]

I’m not sure that’s really what the uncertainty principle says. Also, its not really true that most scientists think we live in a simulation. That’s just one theory of a pretty wacky group of physicists.

Having said that, if you’re right, then maybe Collingwood won the GF last year after all! I’ll rejoice in that!

You'll need to find a wormhole to slip into that parallel universe where woods won last year. But its a toss up coz in that universe it could be only our 2nd flag and also it might have evolved into gridiron or soccer.

 

[Somebody]

Yeah, now I cannot tell if you’re being sarcastic at my sarcastic post...

But just in case you’re semi serious - The post you quoted was my first on this thread for a while. Nobody criticised my opinion before the post you quoted as I had not given my opinion.

you said maybe people shouldnt' be on big footy if they complain about criticism, but why does it matter if they complain? coz nobody should care abotu them complaining or they maybe don't belong on bigfooty.

 

[Finnishpie]

That's exactly what it says, it takes us from the comfortable clockwork universe of Newton that could be predicted if all the variables were known to not even being able to tell the speed and position (simultaneously) of an electron, hence no objective truth, certainly none that is verifiable. Nature seems to have this bizarre way of hiding itself from us, try to measure the speed of a particle and you can't know it's location, find it's location and you can't measure it's speed. Approach the speed of light and the universe will literally slow down time to stop you achieving it. Observe a wave function and it collapses into particles, stop observing it and it melts back into a probability wave. Nature doesn't want us to know her.
Most scientists accept the math even if they don't accept the theory of why there would be far more sims than real universes, we still have to see if quantum computers give us the processing power to pull it off, but if we can then it's possible, and if it's possible then out of all the trillions of sims it's highly unlikely we are the real one, it's just the odds.
No that last one is the many worlds theory and rest assured we won the flag in many many many universes last year, some of them were even real.

Well, the leap between "knowledge" and "reality" is what I'm questioning. Your first step (we can't know speed/position) is right. The extrapolation that therefore there's not such thing as reality is exactly that -- an extrapolation from that first principle, but it's not a necessary one (from my understanding, though I'm certainly not a quantum physicist).

 

[76woodenspooners]

So you're not a fan of science is what I'm getting.

Please explain the Uncertainty Principle, as Bigfooty's resident theoretical physics professor

Gee, it’s a sign of the times that footy fans are having a tiff over Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

Probably explains last weekend’s brawls at the G, Collingwood and Carlton fans coming to blows over whether Shrödinger’s cat is dead or alive.

 

[Thatsmyname]

Well, the leap between "knowledge" and "reality" is what I'm questioning. Your first step (we can't know speed/position) is right. The extrapolation that therefore there's not such thing as reality is exactly that -- an extrapolation from that first principle, but it's not a necessary one (from my understanding, though I'm certainly not a quantum physicist).

You're making that leap, I never said there was no reality, merely that it stubbornly defies detection, so by definition nothing can really be known with any certainty, Heisenberg's equations or not.

 

[Finnishpie]

You're making that leap, I never said there was no reality, merely that it stubbornly defies detection, so by definition nothing can really be known with any certainty, Heisenberg's equations or not.

Right you are. Somehow I misread that!

 

[Thatsmyname]

Right you are. Somehow I misread that!

I just wish we could have got the universe where we won 27 grand finals and only lost 15, where the frick is that universe?

 

[Finnishpie]

I just wish we could have got the universe where we won 27 grand finals and only lost 15, where the frick is that universe?

At least 50/50!

 

[Somebody]

I just wish we could have got the universe where we won 27 grand finals and only lost 15, where the frick is that universe?

It would be interesting to work out the probability of getting 15 or less GFs out of 42, if each GF was a coin toss. I've forgotten most of my probability though.
If it came out at say 1 in 4 it woudn't be too bad and could plausibly be put down to bad luck. Ovbviously not every one was a coint toss, in some one or the other team was a lot better, but over that many years it should even out. Injuries/suspension often came into it, eg McKenna 1970 (We would certainly have won if not for his injury), Rocca 2003 (or 02?), I think Moore another year.

 

[jmac70]

It would be interesting to work out the probability of getting 15 or less GFs out of 42, if each GF was a coin toss. I've forgotten most of my probability though.
If it came out at say 1 in 4 it woudn't be too bad and could plausibly be put down to bad luck. Ovbviously not every one was a coint toss, in some one or the other team was a lot better, but over that many years it should even out. Injuries/suspension often came into it, eg McKenna 1970 (We would certainly have won if not for his injury), Rocca 2003 (or 02?), I think Moore another year.

There is no luck in probability.

 

[Thatsmyname]

It would be interesting to work out the probability of getting 15 or less GFs out of 42, if each GF was a coin toss. I've forgotten most of my probability though.
If it came out at say 1 in 4 it woudn't be too bad and could plausibly be put down to bad luck. Ovbviously not every one was a coint toss, in some one or the other team was a lot better, but over that many years it should even out. Injuries/suspension often came into it, eg McKenna 1970 (We would certainly have won if not for his injury), Rocca 2003 (or 02?), I think Moore another year.

We're at 26% when we should be a 50% coin toss in a 2 horse race, I don't know the math either but it wouldn't suprise me if it was a lot more than 4 to 1.
I read somewhere you need at least 30 of anything binary to start to see it even out... were at 42 and getting reamed!!!

 

[sr36]

We're at 26% when we should be a 50% coin toss in a 2 horse race, I don't know the math either but it wouldn't suprise me if it was a lot more than 4 to 1.
I read somewhere you need at least 30 of anything binary to start to see it even out... were at 42 and getting reamed!!!

2019 isn't the year to cry over spilt milk. This is a year to go to the fridge open a fresh carton and enjoy it.


And frankly if you go with the coin toss probability, we probably should have only played in about 20 and won 10 of them.

 

[Thatsmyname]

And frankly if you go with the coin toss probability, we probably should have only played in about 20 and won 10 of them.

No that's not the math, our win rate over 122 years has been 61%. In Grand Finals 35%.

Our normal win rate should be showing 26 premierships, we are way off our own pace. Lot more than coin tosses going on there.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Lots of tossing

 

[Hazz]

you said maybe people shouldnt' be on big footy if they complain about criticism, but why does it matter if they complain? coz nobody should care abotu them complaining or they maybe don't belong on bigfooty.

Yeah you’ve missed my smart-assery.

I was poking fun at another poster who was complaining about people complaining.

 

[Quicky]

It's a tough sport. But we have better options in Wills position and we have to do the right thing by the team not an individual. Wills was okay defensively on Cripps for a quarter then got shown up after that. We could only trust him with 50% gametime, a small 12 disposals (for his position), limited impact offensively and 0 clearances which is bad for a midfielder. Unfortunately you can't carry that when you aren't a developing team and when you have better options for the role. It's a cut throat game.

 

[Black_White]

Gee, it’s a sign of the times that footy fans are having a tiff over Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

Probably explains last weekend’s brawls at the G, Collingwood and Carlton fans coming to blows over whether Shrödinger’s cat is dead or alive.

The cat is dead.
And I’ve reported Shrödinger to the RSPCA.

 

[Somebody]

2019 isn't the year to cry over spilt milk. This is a year to go to the fridge open a fresh carton and enjoy it.


And frankly if you go with the coin toss probability, we probably should have only played in about 20 and won 10 of them.

Not crying just idly curious.Basically in stats you look at the liklihood that an unexpected outcome could have happened by chance. If that chance is very small (in research they often use p=.05 (1 in 20) or p=.01 (1 in 100), if the result exceeds those values it's considered likely to be not just chance. That woudl suggest there was some systemic reason why it happened - eg collingwood teams were particularly gritty over history and got into GF's by determination but were then outclassed. Or a tribe pointed the bone at the club. Or they had the colliwobbles in finals.

 

[Somebody]

Yeah you’ve missed my smart-assery.

I was poking fun at another poster who was complaining about people complaining.

My comment was sposed to be smartarsery - guess I'm slipping. complaining about people complaining abotu people complaining about people complaining etc etc etc

 

[Somebody]

We're at 26% when we should be a 50% coin toss in a 2 horse race, I don't know the math either but it wouldn't suprise me if it was a lot more than 4 to 1.
I read somewhere you need at least 30 of anything binary to start to see it even out... were at 42 and getting reamed!!!


View attachment 674607

Looks like it's a binomial distribution. Eg https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
Put in probability at .5, trials 42, successes 15, and prob of 15 or less premierships is about 1 in 23. Ie pretty unlikely to be just by chance. If odds of winning the GF's were on average .37 ie bit better than 1 in 3 (by entering that in the prob field) then it comes out as expected. I think the bone point has been lifted, but we not totally out of the colliwobble woods yet, last year being potentially a wobbly GF although really we played way beyond expectations to even get there. Winning this year should completely erase last vestiges of the wobbles theory from any serious analyst's repertoire.
Will Bucks be the man to finally slay the wounded colliwobbles dragon?

 

[kickitolachie]

That's exactly what it says, it takes us from the comfortable clockwork universe of Newton that could be predicted if all the variables were known to not even being able to tell the speed and position (simultaneously) of an electron, hence no objective truth, certainly none that is verifiable. Nature seems to have this bizarre way of hiding itself from us, try to measure the speed of a particle and you can't know it's location, find it's location and you can't measure it's speed. Approach the speed of light and the universe will literally slow down time to stop you achieving it. Observe a wave function and it collapses into particles, stop observing it and it melts back into a probability wave. Nature doesn't want us to know her.
Most scientists accept the math even if they don't accept the theory of why there would be far more sims than real universes, we still have to see if quantum computers give us the processing power to pull it off, but if we can then it's possible, and if it's possible then out of all the trillions of sims it's highly unlikely we are the real one, it's just the odds.
No that last one is the many worlds theory and rest assured we won the flag in many many many universes last year, some of them were even real.

This is the kind of thing that people write when they mistake the verbal expression of quantum mechanics for the mathematical reality. Thought experiments (ie they have never been performed) like the famous Schroedinger's cat one, are attempts to explain the apparent disconnect between what the mathematics shows and the reality we experience. The connection to premierships won or lost is in the mind only.