Quote:
Originally Posted by treymancini
Can you determine the ball's momentum and position simultaneously?  |
the more accurately you know an exact position, the less youknow about where it is going... the two are not the same thing.
shrodinger's cat can apply as long as you change the %'s to teh context... before it occurs... once it is observed it's no longer what-if which is all shrodinger's cat is about.
if something is 50/50, then both are true in equal amounts. the cat is both dead and alive based on the behaviour of some variable that is 50/50 to occur and cause an action when true (or false, but not both) to kill the cat etc...
unlike does a tree in the woods make a noise if no one is there to hear it... of course it does, dummy, unless that forest exists in a vacuum...
and, yes gut feelings are some portion nonsense. just because a random guess is right occasionally doesn't make it true. this is why in drug tests you have a control group that is given a placebo treatment, because at least some portion of people will have a psychosomatic response just through the power of suggestion when you have to rely on self-reporting of how someone feels as opposed to some quantitative measurement.
a gut feeling isn't a random guess though... you are actually doing the same things the analytics are doing but with a lower resolution due to limitation of any and all human brains. you are judging probabilty and likelihood of outcomes and trying to pick the best path to success.... no different than using sabermetrics or traditional stats.
until these stats get refined better, they are some portion nonsense too... any breakeven point calculated at the moment is very precise, but not neccessarily accurate. so much can go wrong from data collection to application... even original ideas of how to crunch the numbers will be severely flawed.
if done right, it is way better than what a human brain can do at this point in nearly every way... the only arguments that exists are about things that don't fall under "doing it right"... usually invovles top-down thinking instead of allowing facts of the context to dictate how you do it.
sprague: wouldn't you say that any month you could say the same things about different sets of people? no one is consistent, that's the point of a large enough sample size.. for the same reason the numbers are mostly useless from a 1-month stretch, same reason the eye-test over 1-month is useless.. even less useful because you don't remember as much as the written record does, but you can remember things that don't show up in the record -- like a divorce or maybe you saw the player not workout or be lazy etc etc...
things that aren't measured, at the moment but could be. all of this can get more sophisticated... it is inevitable. it doens't mean it guarntees success, it just means as we get more sophisticated we will bet on teh best odds more often than not.
some people can't handle pressure. simple as that... a qualatative assessment that might or might not be clear after a couple playoffs...
e.g. barry bonds perceived as choking in the playoffs is a clear victim of small samples and what people will believe even without any real evidence to prove it other than a hunch. it's more about what they felt beforehand and think in a top-down way to justify that. in the absence of evidence, that's the only way to come to a solid conclusion. it's possible barry choked, but there is no evidence to support that with confidence... that's different than saying 1 thing or another... because you can't know...
if you can't know, both must be true (in proporiton to reality). coming back to shrodinger's cat.