Virtually any statement saying something does exist could be rephrased as saying something else does not exist, and vice versa. Its semantics games. Why in the world should saying "there's no such thing as <insert X here>" be automatically more valid than saying "there is such thing as <insert X here>?"



First of all, evidence and proof are not the same.
Second of all, that doesn't really matter since I really doubt there is any solid evidence that the inherent psychic abilities of every person in the world doesn't affect every random event.

Um, actually it would take the discovery of just one solar sytem without intelligent life to prove the point I made.

Lets take something easy. Prime numbers. Last time I checked, there was some number out there that was "the largest known prime number". We'll call it X. No one (as of the last time I checked has found a way to prove the existence of a larger prime number given one prime number). So we don't know if there is a prime number larger than X.
We can guess with a bit of logic that given an infinite amount of numbers, there probably is at least one more prime number. But we can't prove it (at the moment).
But, by your logic, by saying "There is a prime number larger than X", the burden of proof is on me to prove it. Unless I can prove it, we MUST assume that there are no prime numbers larger than X.
This is very silly.
The true statement is "We don't know if there is a prime number larger than X or not".

Generally, it is much easier to prove something DOES exist than that it does not exist. To prove it does exist you must only show one example of it to know it exists, whereas proving that something does not exist is nearly impossible. That does NOT mean that a claim of non-existence is automatically true.
But c'mon, reasoning that you can obtain logical truth just from having no evidence one way or the other?

Dang short edit window...my last line should be:
C'mon, reasoning that you can obtain logical truth just from having no proof one way or the other?

Ok, first proof should go to whomever was asked to prove something. It all comes down to responsibility. A grown up should be able to back his or her claims.
"The sky is blue".
Response- "prove it."
Claimant - "OK look outside."
Thats how its done. Person A makes a statement, person B demands proof, person A sites precedent. Basic law of debate, both prove the other incorrect. The "burden of proof" lies in both parties.

Proof of alien life(intelligent or otherwise) requires evidence of just one life or even the building blocks of life as we know it (water) basically anywhere not here. how this got on aliens is beyond me. Earth obviously is not a very good cite to case for intelligent life proof.

We could go on and on debating statistics and philosophy and alien life in the universe forever. The question is can I just roll one die twice. Unless your the most ANAL person in the world just let him roll the #### dice and play the game. The odds difference are marginal at best. Its a game, just play. I love philosophy but this is really getting tired.

Actually, yes. You threw me with the double negative.

Yes, it would be. But that's because you're omitting a few things. We know that prime numbers exist. We know that as computing power increases, we are able to calculate larger and larger primes, and there is no reason to suppose that this will come to a stop. What's more, any claims on this subject are testable; we'll be able to verify, should we choose, that the next prime discovered is in fact a prime. In other words, there are good reasons to believe that larger primes exist, even though we have no proof.

Similarly, we know that intelligent life is possible, and we know that the Universe is so large that conditions favorable to its evolution are likely to arise in many places, apart from our own earth. It's therefore reasonable to keep an open mind on this question.

On the other hand, we have no good reason to believe in the existence of ley lines, leprechauns, crystal healing, angels, feng shui, astrology, Santa Claus, UFOs or luck. Until actual evidence is presented in favour of these phenomena, they may safely be regarded as baseless superstition and wishful thinking.

Euclid proved that there is always a larger prime, thousands of years ago. It's the classic reductio ad absurdum:

1. assume that you have found the largest prime P
2. calculate the product of this with all smaller primes and add one to it - (1x2x3x5x7 ... xP) + 1.
3. this number is not divisible by P or any smaller prime. It is therefore either divisible by a larger prime than P or it must be prime itself. This contradicts the assumption and so there can be no largest prime.

I learnt this when I was in school, perhaps because there was no HeroClix at that time

Andrew

Regarding superstitious dice rituals:

I am as rational a guy as I know, and I firmly believe my dice are random, and that there is no such thing as "lucky dice."

And yet, I roll a bunch to see which are "lucky" when I start. It's complete nonsense, and yet I feel compelled.

I also carry around 50 dice with me, for no other reason than the absurdity of it.

####. I should have known that.

Warden - um, dang. I feel silly now. There wasn't HC when I was in school either, but one of my college profs commented about how there is no proof for larger prime number existing. Of course, some of my college profs were pretty odd...

Ok, ignoring the whole nice little proof above that makes this example moot, my point is that I am NOT ommiting a few things - you are. By saying that an assertion that something does exist must be proved to be correct, and an assertion that something does not exist is automatically correct, the rest of your reasons are irrelevant! You haven't "proved" it, therefore it isn't so. I completely agree that even if you can't prove a larger prime exists (once again, ignoring the proof) you've got excellent evidence to believe that it does. But, by your logic of "non existence is always true unless proven otherwise", you just have to throw out all that evidence.



But philosophy and alien life are fun!
And we've just been doing probability not statistics...don't even get me started on statistics
Ya know, I'm probably not among the most anal people in the world when it comes to games. House rules, proxies, converted models, those are all fine with me. But the one die at a time thing bugs me. Especially if its at a tournament. I just can't see any reason for doing it other than to maybe be able to cheat. It slows things down a little (not much, but a little), and it gives your opponent the chance that maybe you won't remember what you got on your first roll. Or maybe you can claim it was something else, an argument will ensue, and you'll end up having to reroll it. Dice aren't exactly hard to come by - everyone should have gotten 2 with the starter. I generally bring along extra little bags of WK dice just to loan or give out to people who forgot theirs. So I think you should have to roll two dice.

Back to the philosophy...



Interesting...many people who would dismiss the second set would also dismiss the possibility of other life. Not sure why.
Now here's the thing...we basically agree here. You said they can be "safely regarded as..." That's fine and dandy by me. But "safely regarding" isn't the same as "proving".
I don't think you would take seriously a scientific property that said:
"I will PROVE that property X does not exist.
First, there is no proof that property X does exist.
Therefore it does not"

Some people who do believe in <insert whatever here> often believe they do have reasons to believe in it. If I rearranged my house to have good Feng Shui and suddenly won the lotto three times in a row, that'd probably convince me. Now, if someone wants to come present psychic testimony in court, the fact that they believe it isn't good enough - they had better be able to convince (which is still not the same as prove) to us that its valid. But if you get into a friendly debate with somebody about it, neither of you have a leg to stand on. You've both got no proof. And to be honest, the skeptic doesn't even have evidence going for him. "I've never seen it" doesn't mean squat. Personally, I've never seen China, but I'm willing to accept it exists.
What it comes down is that if Joe comes to you and says "I demand you rearrange your house to have good Feng Shui" he's put the burden of proof on himself to convince you that's actually worthwhile.
But if you go to Joe and say "I demand you do away with this whole Feng Shui arrangement of your house. It doesn't really work." Well, then the balls in your corner.

Though, if someone claims they can control minds but can't prove it to you...I think you've won the point

Litz,

According the the latest ruling from WK, No you can not roll the same dice twice because both dice must be rolled at the same time. I believe this is one of the things they were trying to avoid when that ruling was created.

But I never said that. I don't believe anyone said that in this thread. I said that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, which isn't the same thing. The burden has to be with the claimant, for simple practical reasons, which you understand yourself - you showed that with your comment about China.


Well, like I say, that isn't my position at all.


Definitely not. Shoddy logic.


Oh, I'd never say anything like that. That would be rude. I'd just laugh at him, and move his furniture around when he wasn't looking.

FINE! THE QUESTIONS BEEN ANSWERED! ROLL TWO FRIGGIN DICE! Philosophy is often just a mode for people to sound smarter than they are. Like the idiots who claim apathy is the opposite of love. Chinese Feng Shui won't help you win the lottery. In America Feng Shui is an idiotic way for "trendy" people to justify where they put their toaster. Rearanging the ambient chi in your home will do nothing without the "supposed" ability to harness and manipulate it. Like rearanging the air molecules around your head, you won't breath any different. There is a whole lot more to Feng Shui than moving stuff around. This was just a rule call question, know it's existencialism and are they out there? I like the contrast of Superhero mini game to higher cosmological law.

Umm, have we been arguing by mistake the whole time, or are we running into semantics trouble?
The whole reason I started arguing this with you was that I felt you said, in effect:
1) A person claiming a property exists must prove it.
2) A person claiming a property does not exist is automatically correct unless proven otherwise.

Hence my whole argument.
The reason I started this whole argument way back when was that someone said "go take a probability class and it will prove to you that 'lucky' habits don't really work", which is wrong. A prob class will teach you how probability should be, but they won't mention anything about whether or not there is a way to affect that luck.

As for the original question, can you use one die or two, I think that's been overwhelmingly answered as no. Unless you can prove your psychic powers by mind controlling the judge.

LOL. There's a great quote from the Shadowfist RPG (where feng shui is used to control the world): "Yes, this is a game where a geomantically trained team of ninja interior decorators can can devastate your foes."

Oh, as to the carrying 50 dice you don't need...you never know when you will be unexpectedly invited to play a big wargame with individual die rolls (say, Warhammer) and whether you just might happen to get a swarm army, and just happen to get 50 models in position to attack all at once, and it would be just so much cooler if you get to roll the whole huge attack as one big roll!

Looks like. At least we got to piss off Litz.

Yeah i'm a sucker for pointless arguments by people who simply missread each others statements and moved too quick to make themselves look smarter. Bravo, Jung would be proud. I'm out.
Piss me off? That's the MOST you did!

My cat's breath smells like cat food.