Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics World

Six faces of chance

Sylvie D. Vauclair

Published Dec 1, 1994• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Suppose that you are playing a dice game with a friend. You throw two sixes and you feel very happy because you know that you are going to win. You even think that it may be unnecessary for your friend to throw the dice. The probability that he will also throw two sixes is very small indeed, and in any case you are sure that he cannot obtain a better score than yours. Now he throws the dice, and here comes a big surprise – a six is face up on one of the dice, while the second one splits in two, showing two faces: one face with a six and the other face with a one.

DOI
10.1088/2058-7058/7/12/36

Related papers

The probability in throwing dices and in measurement

Franco Pavese

The paper summarises the main differences between the process of throwing dices and the measurement process, and draws some of the consequences on the meaning and use of the probability concept in the two case.

ACTA IMEKO•Nov 4, 2016•2 citations

Uncertain Decisions and the Many-Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

David Papineau

Abstract Imagine you are faced with a quantum-mechanical device which will display either H or T (‘heads’, ‘tails’) when it is operated (‘spun’). You know that the single-case probability, or chance, of H is 0.8, and the chance of T is 0.2. (I could have taken a biased coin, but I wanted to make it clear that we are dealing with chances.)

•Jan 16, 2003•1 citation

Dice throwing as an analogy for teaching quantum mechanics

Benício de Barros Neto

A model of dice throwing that serves to illustrate as many quantum mechanical concepts as a vibrating string.

Journal of Chemical Education•Dec 1, 1984•1 citation

God plays with a quantum die infinite interactions from the arche

Viviana Yaccuzzi Polisena

Albert Einstein once said, “God does not play dice.”In turn, Stephen Hawking said, “not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they cannot be seen.”These quotations indicate fragmentation and dualism. On the one hand, God is an infinite almighty eternal gambler. He is pure energy. On the other hand, there are two classic and solid dice.God does not think of classic dice. There is no separation between the Dice and God. It is a quantum die which has infinite interactions. The game is a Code.A new name for Hugh Everett III’s theory is proposed. This is Infinite Interacting Vibrations. Can we conceive the Divine as a source from which an infinity of vibrations emanate?The universe is vibration. Our vibration is one of the infinite alternatives with a unique dimensional pattern. Each vibration is not the origin nor end of anything, but a fluctuation of the quantum Ether.

SOCRATES: An International, Multi-lingual, Multi-disciplinary, Refereed , Indexed Scholarly journal•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

Einstein’s Response to the New Dynamics

A. Pais

Abstract Everyone familiar with modern physics knows that Einstein’s attitude regarding quantum mechanics was one of skepticism. No biography of him fails to mention his saying that God does not throw dice. He was indeed given to such utterances (as I know from experience), and stronger ones, such as ‘It seems hard to look in God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use of “telepathic” means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does)’ [E1]. However, remarks such as these should not create the impression that Einstein had abandoned active interest in quantum problems in favor of his quest for a unified field theory. Far from it. In fact, even in the search for a unified theory, the quantum riddles were very much on his mind, as I shall discuss in Chapter

•Aug 25, 2005•0 citations

Chance and Determinism

Nina Emery

On a very intuitive way of thinking, if it is already determined that some event will happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it failing to happen, and if it is already determined that some event will not happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it happening. A different sort of worry that arises for an actual frequentist analysis of deterministic chance is that such an analysis seems unsuited to theories like Boltzmannian statistical mechanics or Bohmian mechanics insofar as those theories are supposed to describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole. It should be clear, then, that there are options available for understanding deterministic chance that are in keeping with several of the leading metaphysical analyses of chance. It is widely accepted that whatever chances are, they are to be contrasted with individual credences . According to classical statistical mechanics, the fundamental laws are Newtonian and thus deterministic.

Routledge eBooks•Aug 11, 2021•2 citations
Suppose that you are playing a dice game with a friend. You throw two sixes and you feel very happy because you know that you are going to win. You even think that it may be unnecessary for your friend to throw the dice. The probability that he will also throw two sixes is very small indeed, and in any case you are sure that he cannot obtain a better score than yours. Now he throws the dice, and here comes a big surprise – a six is face up on one of the dice, while the second one splits in two, showing two faces: one face with a six and the other face with a one.
Albert Einstein once said, “God does not play dice.”In turn, Stephen Hawking said, “not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they cannot be seen.”These quotations indicate fragmentation and dualism. On the one hand, God is an infinite almighty eternal gambler. He is pure energy. On the other hand, there are two classic and solid dice.God does not think of classic dice. There is no separation between the Dice and God. It is a quantum die which has infinite interactions. The game is a Code.A new name for Hugh Everett III’s theory is proposed. This is Infinite Interacting Vibrations. Can we conceive the Divine as a source from which an infinity of vibrations emanate?The universe is vibration. Our vibration is one of the infinite alternatives with a unique dimensional pattern. Each vibration is not the origin nor end of anything, but a fluctuation of the quantum Ether.
Abstract Everyone familiar with modern physics knows that Einstein’s attitude regarding quantum mechanics was one of skepticism. No biography of him fails to mention his saying that God does not throw dice. He was indeed given to such utterances (as I know from experience), and stronger ones, such as ‘It seems hard to look in God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use of “telepathic” means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does)’ [E1]. However, remarks such as these should not create the impression that Einstein had abandoned active interest in quantum problems in favor of his quest for a unified field theory. Far from it. In fact, even in the search for a unified theory, the quantum riddles were very much on his mind, as I shall discuss in Chapter
On a very intuitive way of thinking, if it is already determined that some event will happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it failing to happen, and if it is already determined that some event will not happen, then there is no non-trivial chance of it happening. A different sort of worry that arises for an actual frequentist analysis of deterministic chance is that such an analysis seems unsuited to theories like Boltzmannian statistical mechanics or Bohmian mechanics insofar as those theories are supposed to describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole. It should be clear, then, that there are options available for understanding deterministic chance that are in keeping with several of the leading metaphysical analyses of chance. It is widely accepted that whatever chances are, they are to be contrasted with individual credences . According to classical statistical mechanics, the fundamental laws are Newtonian and thus deterministic.