MarbitChow wrote:drachefly wrote:That criterion is silly. What if there were 20 thinkamancers? We could exclude the d23 hypothesis with extreme strength.

That's because 20 Thinkamancers in a sample size of 20 is DRAMATICALLY different odds.

You didn't qualify your complaint that way, did you?

What you said was treating it as a distribution, ignoring the information that made each draw different.

MarbitChow wrote:... The first is not sufficient to exclude the purely random hypothesis. The second is.

Exclusion comes to degrees. We can exclude the random hypothesis to a fair degree, <1%, using just the hard data we have. Forget about the dirtamancer bit.

And throw out Wanda since she was subject to strong post-selection.

If we consider our pre-most-evidence hypothesis-space, it looks something like:

Totally random 1/23

Depends on existing caster types only (correlation, anti-correlation, other specific pattern)

Depends on ruler's (unconscious?) wishes/preferences/personality/appearance

Depends on a side's 'theme'

Depends on location of popping

Depends on circumstances - 'need'.

Depends on Titanic whim (i.e. complicated, arbitrary-seeming rules, nonetheless distinguishable from chance)

Depends on new factors not considered up to this point.

Now, the first of these has the highest prior, by a fairly substantial margin, due to its minimal complexity.

However, we do know that sides and cities have different overall capabilities and potentials in other ways. This reduces the new information brought in by such hypotheses. So does the notion of Signamancy - which creates new links to and from appearance, in causal graphs. This relieves much of the information cost of the appearance of a side or ruler affecting their caster production.

So too with the Fate axis. There's a whole FATE axis out there.

And so on. We are surrounded by effects that may be able to perturb this symmetry.

However, if you're going to introduce extra (and mostly irrelevant, like having gems + a dirtamancer) data into the equation, then we can go a step further and conclude that it is COMPLETELY deterministic, because Rob wrote it that way. There is nothing random about it at all.

No.

Even if it's completely deterministic which characters Rob talks about, he could describe a world which is largely ruled by randomness and he just happened to pick an interesting spot in it.

But

he is not describing such a world.