I'm sorry to jump in, but I heard we were discussing probability.

I you were to flip a coin twice and it came out 'Heads' each time, would that be a coincidence?

Yes.

What if the coin came up Heads ten times in a row? Is that still coincidence?

Yes, it would be. I've actually had this happen to me twice when doing some probability exercises. It does feel very odd but it's not completely unexpected.

What about a hundred, a thousand? Still coincidence, or would you begin to get a little suspicious that something is not 'normal'?

The point that I would become suspicious is exactly 18, due to Bayes Theorem.

Essentially, if we start out with the expectation that heads is equally likely to occur as tails, then we have a 50% probability for heads or 1/2.

When we flip the coin, we can add to this initial probability the amount of iterations we have observed (which goes in the denominator) and how many of them were heads (which goes in the numerator.)

Our new probability is 2/3 for heads at this point, although we would still expect this to correct itself over enough iterations, eventually coming back to 1/2.

However, if we keep flipping heads, then by the time we get heads the 18th time we now have the fraction 19/20, which gives us a probability of 95% heads.

That rounds to a 100% certainty for heads if we're rounding to the nearest 10's place, which is something that should almost never happen if it's 50% likely. This is the point where I would say, informally, that it's highly likely that the next flip will be heads.

Now, to be fair, for me to say that something is certain I have a higher degree of precision in mind. In those instances, I'm talking about rounding to the nearest integer. In this instance, for me to say that I am certain that the next flip would be heads, we would have to flip heads 198 times consecutively, which would be 199/200 or 99.5%.

We should expect some fluctuation when we have a low number of iterations, but we should not expect the trend to take us towards 100% certainty. We only know if it seems to be trending towards 100% certainty after 18 iterations, though, before that we would just have an increasing indication that it is which is not enough evidence for me.

It could be the case that, for this specific coin, heads is actually closer to 80% or even 75% more likely. The exact percentage there would require a lot more iterations to cement and it would be harder to prove. Such a coin would be genuinely difficult to tell apart from a truly 50-50 one with a low number of iterations.

However, the most obvious and dramatic change, which would be if heads was 100% (or 0%) probable, is something that we can be reasonably sure about with a reasonably low number of iterations; 18.

This is a really important question to be asking and I think you've illustrated here why probability is so important. I appreciate it.

I operate within the realm of coincidence vs. not. I do not have mathematical equations to govern what is and what is not a coincidence, so I do my best to arrive at the best conclusion I can come up with.

I'm interested in which ones you use and how you interpret them.

I believe the Bible is written in Fuzzy Logic, as opposed to Boolean. I do my best to move the 'Truth Value' as close to '1' as possible.

Logical.

This is my opinion, but I believe that if the Bible were written in Boolean, it would be much easier to 'hack' it, and therefore be understood by Beasts and the Beast System. Fuzzy Logic requires a higher Consciousness to decipher.

Folks that try and use Gematria for example to arrive at 'Truth' are using Boolean, and therefore will not be able to discover the Bible's deepest secrets.

I agree with your criticisms of methods like Gematria and your reasons for them.

A Quantum Computer that is good at Fuzzy Logic may be the solution to get everyone to finally agree with what translation is best.

In my opinion, quantum computing is overrated. I don't think we need it to perform computations, certainly not the relatively trivial computations that come up in philosophical logic.

The issue comes more from trying to come up with computational definitions and proofs for the concepts that we're talking about. This is where controversy so easily arises because, despite the fact that we all use the same words and can agree with the same sentences, we often find out that our interpretations are completely different.

I mentioned in another thread that my big issue with Trinitarianism is that it has no computational definition, so to me that seems to imply that it should be more-or-less rejected as incoherent.