Roulette Metaphysical Gambling?

Lets's have an existential-philosophical-propositional-discussion here.

Ok so apparently precognition in gambling is a thing. I was a bit surprised when I read about it. Apparently some people win with this. So if parapsychological phenomenon can be talked about seriously or semi-seriously in gambling let's revisit the idea of "magical thinking".

This is what Wikipedia has to say about magical thinking:

OK. Let's point the elephant in the room shall we?

Also from wiki:

Did you catch that? Can you see the contradiction? It's "magical thinking" if there is an "absence of any plausible causal link" between events. But it's a fallacy if you say that the absence of evidence proves that something is either true or false for sure.

Key word here is "plausible".

Who says what is plausible or not?

Science does.

So if you believe prayer can cure disease, technically, psychiatry could argue that you have magical thinking disorder because (from wiki)

OK, who defines the commonly understood laws of causality?

Science does.

But let's quote big science guy Carl Sagan. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." He was talking about space aliens. People take him very seriously. This is not viewed as magical thinking at all. But let's paraphrase the idea behind it a bit:



Now that sounds a bit magical.

OK lets get to the point.

Does the roulette wheel absolutely, unequivocally "does not have a memory"? OK, so each spin is totally, absolutely unrelated to the other?

Where is the evidence of that? That's right. It's just an assumption. Because you can't even begin to imagine an experiment to test something like this. We simply don't know for instance if there is some sort of quantum subatomic relation between each and everything in the Universe. But just because we don't know... Doesn't mean it's not there.

I want to believe?

Let's talk about Reading Randomness as a theory now.

Reading Randomness says that random results have temporary patterns in them that may continue. Wiki:

Karl Popper came up with that. Would he perhaps say that Reading Randomness is a pseudoscience because you can't falsify it? IDK. Karl Popper is taken very seriously. I'm being repetitive her enut Reading Randomness says that random results sometimes have temporary patterns in them that can continue. The refutation claim would be that random results do not have any type of patterns in them that can continue.

So we need to define what is a pattern.

says Wiki.

According to Karl Popper's falsifiability test, Is it possible to say that random results do not have regularities in them that can continue? Can you test that? Absolutely. It's called the Illiterate Randomness theory.

Illiterate Randomness says that random results DO NOT have temporary patterns in them that can continue. This is a scientific theory because it has a refutation claim that can be tested. All you need to do is find a pattern in randomness. BOOM, theory invalidated.

We all have seen this:

Code:

X
X
X
X
X
X

Or this:

Code:

X
    X
X
    X
X
    X
X
    X

If this is not a pattern IDK what would it be.

So illiterate randomness is invalidated.

Illiterate randomness is just another name for "the wheel does not have a memory" theory.

Wiki:

"Memory" is repetition of the past in the future. Memory is a pattern that continue.

When you say that "the wheel does not have a memory" you are saying that PATTERNS NEVER CONTINUE. Well. They obviously do.

If Illiterate Randomness is false, Reading Randomness is true!

So RR could be scientific after all.

It's not just a play on words here.

Let's talk about the butterfly effect for a moment. Let's dive into wiki again. It says on the article on the butterfly effect that it is "

The famous butterfly causing a tornado.

Further along, wiki tells us that the butterfly effect

, also,

, but it also says that some other types of quantum butterfly effect have been demonstrated experimentally.

CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY THAT SCIENCE KNOWS FOR SURE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN A SPIN AND THE OTHER? DO WE AS A SPECIES KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO BE KNOWN ALREADY ABOUT CAUSAL RELATIONS IN THIS UNIVERSE?

Absence of evidence.

SO WHY IS IT CONSIDERED MAGICAL THINKING IF NOT EVEN SCIENCE CAN SAY FOR SURE?

If small changes can change the weather, why can't small changes change the spins? We just don't have the technology to measure THE CAUSES of randomness. Just as we can't really measure all the causes in weather changes or quantum stuff.

But we can observe the effects.

Code:

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
    X
X
    X
X
    X
X
    X

Maybe there is some kind of cosmic neutrino rain or something else really tiny going on right at the time you are playing that is influencing the spins to go always in a specific pattern.

WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. NO ONE DOES.

“Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”
― Arthur C. Clarke

Magical thinking?

 

Nice post.
There is stacks of info on rouletteforum on precognition. It doesn’t need to be a mystery, with a bit of time and patience anyone can see for themselves if it’s real or not.