The entire OP is a waste of words.

Zero is a number too small to be measured or the absences of.

Our positive emotions are an objective good and our negative emotions are an objective bad. The objective good and bad is beyond words. It is beyond any reasoning. — TranscendedRealms

Too black and white.

Choice is empirically demonstrable, while hard determinism is an unfalsifiable claim. You are grasping at straws, and looking for an excuse to avoid taking control of your life.

Also, I entirety encourage everyone to learn more math.

Regardless of what I believe, I have always been tempted to play with probabilistic mathematics. — XanderTheGrey

You are gonna have to drop that thoughtless 50/50 notion.

I imagine that somethings are above me, or beyond my judgement. That I'm inept to evaluate them. That I personally am not the measure of all things, at the very least. That there are heights to which I have not climbed, and may be incapable of climbing. — Wosret

I didn't realize you thought so highly of me, I am flattered.

Don't like it when people pick on your imaginary friend?

I think someone needs to learn how to read.

Why on Earth would it be 50/50?

Then we agree, all that stupid nonsense about it being certain is stupid nonsense, since the conditions are always changing.

I think the problem is that too many of you think of probability in an linear fashion but it doesn't work like that. Probability is a vast tangled contingent spider web that is constantly shifting.

I saw what you said but I said over an infinite amount of time, which does not require my presence. It is not my fault if you can't read. Regardless the point still stands.

I could die this very day, and at the very least I am going to die of old age.

You can't use use empty variables to explain everything, they have to be framed in context.

I'll refer you to the question I asked Tim.

All of science is about attempting to make predictive models including statistics.

Whose death?

It is the interaction of the two.

I am aware and ready to live with the outcome of my actions. That is the only way to have true freedom.

I never promised to be reasonable.

As far as I am aware statistics was created by humans. I guess I could be wrong maybe a magical statistics fairy zapped it into existence.

Here, let me show you how I solve people who repeatedly engage in such misdirection.

I can clearly see you are now playing a game. You are not that slick.

Ya, I am not playing. What is the difference between choosing and making? Really? Even a non-statistician knows their differences between the two. You dodged the question and now you are dodging it again.

Ya, I am not buying that act at all. Unless you think a null distribution is divinely supplied by the god of statistics.

This is rapidly getting very tedious, and now I feel you are just purposely being obtuse.

There is a difference between choosing and making.

As I said, off the mark.

Yet my question was not how to choose a distribution.

Personally I don't think you are making the connection here, I mean at certain points you are in agreement with me and I don't think you realize that. You think this is statistics but it is not, this is, for lack of a better word, philosophy. You make these long winded jargon filled proclamations that are completely off the mark. I mean bring up Monte Carlo was a face palm moment. I think your problem is that you are not thinking about this philosophically, it is the age old debate: Does the string have length because that is an objective property of the string, or does it have length because we created the ruler? The same holds for probability: If it is not derived from the real world for application in the real world is it really a measurement? I am not discarding the conceptual components, but saying that alone they are incomplete.


*** Edit - Auto-spell hijacked one of my words.

So over an infinite amount of time, do you think there is a chance I might adopt a poor diet and as a result become overweight?

I You are and have been avoiding my question.

Tell me, how do you plan on making your probability distribution without data?

Btw, for those looking in repeated random events are the actual data.

Even Monte Carlo depends on repeated random events. All of statistics does.

Wait I am getting a new reading from my crystal ball, the mean is definitely 13.

Do you plan to just guess your numbers?

I think the mean is 12, yep 12 just feels right.

Btw, I would very much like to know how you plan to do statistics without repeated random events.

I probably won't respond. This thread is about chance, and our discussion is relative to that. I see no reason to start another thread.

The repeated is how we approximate the true value.