No sarcasm here on this answer but it’s valid because that’s how things are counted.

But measuring isn't counting

What if his but is bigger than yours?

Don't you dare talk **** about my butt

I thought of addressing that. Measuring is determining the number of units of measurement so although you don’t have to count to get there the number you arrive at can be counted to so the same rule applies.

Butt that exact idea of getting there along a sequence of increasing magnitude is invalid when you talk about measuring
You don't necessarily arrive at a measured value from below

Negative or positive numbers or whatever you can still count your way there. The process of measuring is different but the number is still a number.

Of course, but that isn't relevant. You can count the amount of sheep in a meadow, but you can't say that it's more likely that there are 5 sheep instead of 6 because 5 comes before 6

I appreciate you entertaining this topic.

I’m going to reply that yes you can because there cannot be 6 sheep without five sheep but there can be five sheep without the sixth sheep.

Joe Dispenza is one of those guys who manages to stay off Wikipedia obviously to avoid accusations of pseudoscience.

Does anyone what the process is? Can you simply tell wiki that you don’t want a page?

I once got tricked into watching What The Bleep Do We Know in a cinema. I still feel dirty and disgusted. That Dispenza retard was apparently also involved but he didn't stand out among the other bull****.
When we went to a meditation course last year we got some reading material that immediately struck me as dumb ****ing rubbish and of course it turned out to be excerpt from that ****s books.

Ah I see what you mean! That's not how probability works though
For instance, I can't have ten toes without having nine, but still I'm more likely to have ten toes

And ten starts with a 1!

Just kidding.

Benford’s Law doesn’t apply when the likelihood of the final total is heavily skewed. It wouldn’t apply to average height in feet either.

As far as “that’s not how probability works though” that may be where we hit a brick wall because I only understand probabilities well enough to do high school level word problems. My gut response is it doesn’t matter how probability works because that’s how numbers work and the proof is in the pudding.

Since my explanation doesn’t satisfy you or as far as I know pretty much anybody who knows anything about math, riddle me this: If I’m wrong, why the **** does Benford’s Law pan out?

I didn't look too deep into it but I think that it goes like this. Forgive any sloppy phrasing.

If a set of several numbers goes as high as 1 (f. ex a set of five numbers being {1,1,1,1,1}), the number 1 will be 100 percent of the numbers in the set. If that set goes as high as 2 (ex: {1,1,1,2,2,2}), the number 1 will 50 percent of the numbers in the set. If that set goes to 9, then the number 1 will be a smaller piece of that pie. Once a set begins to reach double digits, the distance from 10 to 20 is 100 percent of what it took to get from 1 to 10, so the process repeats and the likelihood of 1 being the leading integer decreases as the highest number in a set approaches 100. Then that applies to hundreds, thousands, etc.

Blending all of that into an average makes 1 the overall most likely leading integer.

Probability doesn't work like that because Bernard's law assumes linearity and requires a framework based on how our base-10 scale operates. So Bernard's law looks at the way that we construct numbers while probability looks at how the chips fall and the likelihood of them falling that way. It's not a useless concept but I don't think that it's useful in all applications because number systems are a language and language has flaws (quirks might be a nicer word for it). It's more useful for things like coding where they're connecting a binary system to a base-10 system, I'm probably incorrectly assuming.

Right?

@hawk Yes, that makes a difference. I was thinking that constants like the speed of light have a physical meaning which determines their value, but of course the fact that constants appear in physics has to do with our choice of units, so essentially our arbitrary units are what determines their value. In that sense it differs from counting sheep or toes. Its more appropriate to view them as random factors gluing equations together, I don't really know how that would explain this law but it's intriguing, I'll try to look into it

@Frown I think that's correct!

If that’s not what I communicated I failed because that’s what I was trying to say.

**** math and **** all y'all

even elph?

is that a real question?

Unless he’s mixing a little math with his glue then yes.

consider it an open invitation

Are you drunk?

To be fair I failed at paying attention to what your whole point was really about. It made for a fun discussion though
Tssk real nerds like math, you poseur

lol that’s not only funny but also one of the coldest disses I’ve ever gotten on here

No but you people are droning on about math in the pseudoscience meme thread and you need to flush your dangly scrotum sack down the toilet.

Reported

No seriously it's not a diss at all

That’s what makes it such a dis. I’m all up in the conversation doing my damndest and then when it’s wrapped up you’re all oh I wasn’t paying attention. You’re such a guy. And you just totally made me your bitch and you’re totally unaware of it because that’s how daddies are. Now, in my heart, you’ll always be my daddy. And you don’t even think so because there’s no way a daddy can think like a bitch. Daddy.

I am confusion

That’s ok, Daddy.

Motivational af.

I'm trying to imagine the kind of burnout nerd who makes a new agey Silver Surfer meme.

The kind of burnout nerd who has ascended to 5D consciousness. :laughing:

Everyone is welcome then everything else makes a non-believer feel unwelcome

It's sciencey as **** up in here.

https://medium.com/@joemechlinski_95...k-d1715ae62bff

Understanding The Three “Brains” in Our Body (And Their Critical Role at Work)