/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15000843
There aren't infinite points in the real world.

>>15000887
so space can't be divided infinitely?

>>15000843
>>15000908
Maybe. It could also be that everything is super-deterministic, so the probability of hitting that point on the dartboard is 100%.
It could also just be that math isn't capable of describing ultimate reality, which is in the same general category as what the other guy said.

>>15000908
no

>>15000843
yeah it's 50:50
It either happens or it doesn't

>>15000929
>>15000942
it's impossible to have absolute determinism, quantum indeterminacy shows that you can never be certain about anything happening in the future.
it's so indeterminate that if you took a time machine to the big bang: earth and milky way galaxy itself would almost certainly not even exist.

>>15000966
>it's impossible to have absolute determinism
You can have a discrete universe and don't have determinism

>>15000968
>discrete universe
science fiction

>>15000970
>science fiction
It has to be discrete, all evidence thus far shows infinite precision doesn't exist in our physical univerise and rationally speaking it would make sense to have a fundamental undivisible unit in the universe.

The problem really seems to be that atheist cucks don't want to accept the idea because it reminds them too much of the first cause argument.

the probability is 1/infinity which is not equal to 0

>>15000843
>if the probability of hitting a point out of an infinite amount is 0 then how come when I throw a dart it always hits a point?

>>15000983
It figures that you are a religious lunatic, because it's a non sequitur to say "infinite precision doesn't exist" which could be just a result of quantum indeterminacy, and then do a leap of "faith"(stupidity) and say "therefore there's a small ball of nature that can't be smaller".

>>15000843
There's no "anything". There's only your consciousness. Everything else is just phenomena in your consciousness

>>15001003
>because it's a non sequitur to say "infinite precision doesn't exist" which could be just a result of quantum indeterminacy, and then do a leap of "faith"(stupidity) and say "therefore there's a small ball of nature that can't be smaller".
https://youtu.be/CTpp0EChDbI?t=147

>>15001016
> nazi religious lunatic spams a german without explanation
figures

>>15000966
>quantum indeterminacy
I'm afraid I'm not super educated on this. Is this some higher level concept in quantum mechanics plebs don't know about, or just the basic idea that QM is 'le dice', and people having warped ideas about the Bell-Inequality?

Because if it's the latter, determinism is always on the table.

>>15000843
>>15000929
>>15001042
I'd also like to add that, if we're going the "quantum mechanics is sufficient and accurate" route of thinking, then considering what "point" the dart lands on isn't relevant. Not necessarily because infinitesimal points can't exist, but because there's a fundamental uncertainty in where the dart lands. We cannot, even in principle, say the dart lands on a single defined point, but a restricted range of points about some average center, and that range has a finite probability.

>>15000843
>>15000908
>so space can't be divided infinitely?
Yes it can
>then how come when I throw a dart it always hits a point?
Because the tip of a dart is not infinitesimally small. You are hitting a certain non-zero area within the dartboard that has a well defined probability of hitting

>>15000843
The dart has a cross-areal sufrace of ~1mm2 and lets say the board has ~0.3m^2=0.3*10^6mm^2.
So the probability of hitting a specific "point" is
P=1mm^2/.3*10^6mm^2~=3.33*10^-6=0.0000003%

>>15000843
The probability of hitting an infinitesimal point with an infinitesimal dart isn't 0, it's infinitesimal.

>>15001195
>non-zero area
>infinity*0*percentage
unholy cringe

>>15001893
the probability isn't zero, retard. the entire premise of your thread is invalid.

>>15000843
it's not that the probability of hitting a point is 0, it's that upon throwing a random dart the probability of you hitting the same point twice is 0.

>>15000908
The opposite. If space were discrete and pixelated it would imply that there exists nontrivial integer solutions to equations of the form a^n + b^n =c^n for n >2 which don't exist.
https://youtu.be/QPMn7SuiHP8
>>15000983
>It has to be discrete
Wrong

>>15001899
>limits aren't real
based, fuck real numbers

>>15000843
Because the sets on the left have measure 0 under the definition of the probability space you're using.
Captcha: GAAAJ

>>15001902
holy shit... I've never hit the same spot before though

>>15001250
>>15001195
You retards are both wrong. Literal midwit argument.

>>15002622
>you retards are just wrong because... because... b-because I said so!
Sasuga anon

>>15000843
matter is a generalized region of "guaranteed" probabilistic existence. the chance that a particle exists in any specific point is functionally zero, but the chance that a particle exists within a specific boundary eventually becomes 99.999...% if the boundary is made large enough.

>>15000843
>if the probability of hitting a point out of an infinite amount is 0 then how come when I throw a dart it always hits a point?
You're making a statistical error. Your odds of getting a result in the sample space is always 100%. There is a 100% chance you will hit a point. There is a 0% chance you will hit that same point again.

is... nobody going to talk about probability distributions? is this even the fucking math board anymore?

>>15002840
Not him, but >>15001250 's argument is only true if you can accurately describe the dartboard as a set of *mutually exclusive* areas equal to the dart's area. Ie: The dart can't land between any two such positions.
Actually, if we're talking about of of those plastic dartboards with pre-cut holes for the darts, then that's a perfect description. But again, we're not.

>>15002919
Nah this has been the schizo crank theory board for quite a while

>>15000843
You don't hit a single point, you hit a collection of points.
>>15000908
Space can only be physically divided down to the plank distance which is much larger than a point since a point is dimensionless by definition.

>>15001962
Space being discrete or continuous has no bearing on mathematical equations like that.

>>15002919
I already did: >>15002428. Not sure why you're posting a normal distribution specifically, since it doesn't have anything to do with the problem at hand.

>>15003060
Nobody said that other anon's calculation was 100% correct for every scenario but it IS one way of calculating the approximate probability of hitting an area on the board. The only other valid method I can think of is doing a calculation on the probability that an area hit on the dart board will enclose a certain point, which is indeed possible to calculate, but means the probability of the dart landing where it did is still zero for a perfect mathematical dart board.

And whilst space can be mathematically divided infinitely, matter cannot and so depending on the specifics of the dart board and dart material, the board may be able to be modeled like a dartboard with precut holes, but we either way, OP's question isn't specific enough so in order to answer the question some assumption has to be made. The bottom line is, assuming a dart board to have an infinite amount of points to hit, especially with them all having an equal probability of hitting is just incorrect in the first place.

And finally on that note, I'm sure someone else has already pointed out to OP that probability 0 doesn't mean it can't happen, but that the likely hood of correctly predicting the position where it would land is matematically 0%. Problem is either OP or classic /sci/tards in the thread are purposely arguing against valid answers because this is 4chan

>>15000983
this is wrong, plenty of evidence shows infinite precision doesn't exist in current theories, for which there is also plenty of evidence that they're incomplete

don't mix up the real universe with models

>>15000843
"impossible" implies "0 probability" but not the other way around. They're not synonymous.
Probability 0 just means that the event has measure 0 in the probability space.
If you accept non-empty sets of measure 0, then possible events with 0 probability follow.
Words in math very rarely mean the exact same thing as when they are used outside of math.

>>15000843
The probability of picking a random number out of ten is 1/10, the probability of picking a random number out of infinite is 1/infinity, which is infinitisemal and not zero. So hitting a point was not impossible, it was just infinitisemal.

>>15003233
pretty sure throwing darts at a board would be somewhat normal

>>15001857
>talking about infinite as if it were real
take your meds

>>15003891
first of all, infinite =/= infinitesimal, and second, tell that to OP, retard

>>15000843
I'm not sure, but isn't it impossible to equate something probabilistic like choosing a random point of a circle and throwing a dart at a darboard? Aren't they two distinct systems?
Sorry, I may just be a dumbass.