Ok new Rand is still stupid

[Thor]

If Morridin popped out after Rand killed those shadowspawns (and was exhausted), it would have been game over.

[capuga]

If Morridin popped out after Rand killed those shadowspawns (and was exhausted), it would have been game over.

 

True, but to be fair Rand admits this and owns up to it.

[MasterAblar]

Doesn't that make Moridin stupid too for not doing it?

[Erunion]

Alas, communications in the Third Age are not what they were. It is possible that Moridin did not know what happened until a few hours too late.

Or he did know, and is playing a deeper game...

[herid]

attacking Rand after Maradon was not all that easy. Rand wiped out the main attack force. a new one would need to be assembled and that could not be done too quickly. and certainly Moridin wouldn't attack all by himself. the new Rand was likely very strong even in his weakened condition and he was not alone. He had a bunch of Asha'man with him and a lot of soldiers.

[muddymess]

I still like the old Rand more. Whoever says being efficient is evil?

[Zentari]

If Morridin popped out after Rand killed those shadowspawns (and was exhausted), it would have been game over.

 

In case you haven't noticed, he seems to be avoiding rand like the plague after he cleared his head on DM.Also, how was he supposed to know that Rand would go all curbstomp on his army? The only one that COULD have known that (DO) isn't in the mood for sharing (or any other mood for that fact).Also, it always helps to having an army or two behind you.

[Mandro]

I think they touch on it. Moridin didn't turn to the dark out of any desire to become lord. Or rather, he only did that at first, but because he's the philosopher that he is, he realized that he had made those same decisions so many times before that the numbers become inconsequential, and the philosopher in him realized also, that it will only end with the end of the pattern, the breaking of the wheel. Though he couldn't remember every life (or at least likely didn't) before, he thought it out, and imagined all that he felt, and so decided it was time to bring it all to an end.

[muddymess]

I think they touch on it. Moridin didn't turn to the dark out of any desire to become lord. Or rather, he only did that at first, but because he's the philosopher that he is, he realized that he had made those same decisions so many times before that the numbers become inconsequential, and the philosopher in him realized also, that it will only end with the end of the pattern, the breaking of the wheel. Though he couldn't remember every life (or at least likely didn't) before, he thought it out, and imagined all that he felt, and so decided it was time to bring it all to an end.

Rand has the same thinking in VoG, and reaches the obvious conclusion - with free will there is always a chance to change the outcome. If Rand the village boy could see it, maybe Moridin can too, even though he is a somber pessimist.

[Nooska]

I think they touch on it. Moridin didn't turn to the dark out of any desire to become lord. Or rather, he only did that at first, but because he's the philosopher that he is, he realized that he had made those same decisions so many times before that the numbers become inconsequential, and the philosopher in him realized also, that it will only end with the end of the pattern, the breaking of the wheel. Though he couldn't remember every life (or at least likely didn't) before, he thought it out, and imagined all that he felt, and so decided it was time to bring it all to an end.

Rand has the same thinking in VoG, and reaches the obvious conclusion - with free will there is always a chance to change the outcome. If Rand the village boy could see it, maybe Moridin can too, even though he is a somber pessimist.

No, see, it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism or intelligence. Moridin fell for the Gamblers Fallacy.

[Agitel]

Moridin would probably much very want to keep Rand alive until he learns how to break the connection between them.

[Zentari]

No, see, it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism or intelligence. Moridin fell for the Gamblers Fallacy.

Not really.Moridin thought that since the DO only needed to win once and the Wheel repeated itself ad infinum, his victory was guaranteed.If you take into account that only his thoughts seem to be the same while the other constant's (the champion of light's) are shifting it's even more of a safe bet to bet on him.

[Nooska]

No, see, it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism or intelligence. Moridin fell for the Gamblers Fallacy.

Not really.Moridin thought that since the DO only needed to win once and the Wheel repeated itself ad infinum, his victory was guaranteed.If you take into account that only his thoughts seem to be the same while the other constant's (the champion of light's) are shifting it's even more of a safe bet to bet on him.

That is false, and is exactly the gamblers fallacy.

 

Any event with a non cumulative, non zero chance of occuring has chance of occuring that approaches 1 as the number of possible occurences approaches infinity. However, there is no point where the even will occur.

 

Playing on red each and every spin of the roulette wheel should have you 0 money out of pocket after an even number of spins on average, and ahead or behind by 1 on an odd number of spins, on average, because of the 50% chance (ignoring green 0). However, you can bet on red all day, the rest of your life actually, and you will never be guaranteed 1 win. Not getting the win becomes increasingly improbable, but remains quite possible.

 

Improbable possibilities are harder to grasp than probable impossibilities, its a trait of the human mind.

[Nooska]

In fact, taking into account that the wheel has spun an infinite number of times, and the DO has still not won, the safest bet is that he will never win, and indeed is prevented from winning by some force, exactly because the probability of him not winning at least once in an infinite number of attempts approaches zero.

[Zentari]

That is false, and is exactly the gamblers fallacy.

 

Any event with a non cumulative, non zero chance of occuring has chance of occuring that approaches 1 as the number of possible occurences approaches infinity. However, there is no point where the even will occur.

 

Playing on red each and every spin of the roulette wheel should have you 0 money out of pocket after an even number of spins on average, and ahead or behind by 1 on an odd number of spins, on average, because of the 50% chance (ignoring green 0). However, you can bet on red all day, the rest of your life actually, and you will never be guaranteed 1 win. Not getting the win becomes increasingly improbable, but remains quite possible.

 

Improbable possibilities are harder to grasp than probable impossibilities, its a trait of the human mind.

Non-cumulative being a keyword here.To be more precise the statistical probabilities must remain the same for the gamble's falacy to play.

If one assumes that the DO retains the memories or at least some memories, it's pretty obvious that he'll come out on top eventually.

 

In fact, taking into account that the wheel has spun an infinite number of times, and the DO has still not won, the safest bet is that he will never win, and indeed is prevented from winning by some force, exactly because the probability of him not winning at least once in an infinite number of attempts approaches zero.

Just because the light is winning does not mean the DO won't win or that the safest bet is to bet on the light (statistically that is, let's not get into the whole book genre/ word of god discussion).That is called hot hand fallacy if I'm not mistaken.

[Thor]

Look the probability of the Light winning has nothing to do with it.

 

The fact is, if the Light wins, the cycle will just repeat itself. And the battle between Shadow and Light will keep going forever.

 

But if the Shadow wins, the cycle ends. And that is what Ishamael wants.

 

Even if Ishamael knew that the Shadow had almost no chance of winning, he would still have gone to the Shadow anyways.

[Lacanos]

Allow me to use some example figures. Say the light wins 99% of the time. That doesn't mean the shadow is ever guaranteed to win. However, it becomes incredibly incredibly likely that sooner or later the shadow will win.

[FarShainMael]

1. In an infinite period of time, anything that can happen, will happen. It's what infinity means.

 

2. The Wheel has been in existence for an infinite period of time. (Discuss!) The DO has not won.

 

3. Therefore, a win for the DO can not happen.

 

Someone please tell Moridin..

[maradon]

1. In an infinite period of time, anything that can happen, will happen. It's what infinity means.

 

2. The Wheel has been in existence for an infinite period of time. (Discuss!) The DO has not won.

 

3. Therefore, a win for the DO can not happen.

 

Someone please tell Moridin..

But there was a moment of creation, so there has only been a finite number of turnings of the wheel to date. Which also leads to the fact that both final victories for light and dark can still happen.

 

I do find it amusing the number of circular arguments that occur in these threads.

[Kal-El814]

Regardless of whether or not Moridin's logic in siding with the DO is sound or fallacious, isn't he more or less leaving Rand alone until Tarmon Gai'don at this point? The only Forsaken that have messed with him directly, for a little while at least, have done so against Moridin's orders unless I'm remembering things incorrectly. When they bumped into one another in TAR, there was no conflict.

[htarcan]

I assume, acording to the dark prophecy, rand must live until the last battle. only then he can be defeated. forsaken aren't allowed to kill him. so moridin wouldn't do that.

[Pygmalion79]

Moridin's reasoning for joining the DO does not conform to the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy consists in assuming that when events have diverged from their probable outcome (you have thrown heads five times in a row, a batter is hitless in his last 25 at bats, the ball has fallen on black 20 straight times) a return toward the norm is expected (you must soon throw tails, a batter is "due," the ball must fall on red), whereas in reality probabilities are unchanged (you still have a 50/50 chance of throwing heads or tails, a batter's chance of getting a hit is still given by his regressed batting average over the past three years*, the odds of the ball falling on red are still slightly less than 1/2).

 

Moridin's reasoning was not, "The DO keeps on losing, so he's due!" but rather, IIRC, "The DO has a non-zero chance of getting the Big Win, the game will be repeated an infinite number of times, and it therefore follows that at some point the DO will get the Big Win and destroy the pattern." Moreover, as someone pointed out, the outcomes are not independent. The pattern's events are independent but the DO's are not: he learns and can therefore change his behavior over time.

 

The more important point is whether the Wheel has already turned an infinite number of times. If it has, then Moridin's first premise is on shaky ground, and the DO has already had an infinite amount to time to adapt, without any success at defeating the pattern's inbuilt corrective measures (such as its ability to spin out ta'veran to correct anomalies).

 

*That's not strictly right. You shouldn't calculate a batter's chance of getting a hit from his batting average, but from a more complicated set of calculations.

[FarShainMael]

1. In an infinite period of time, anything that can happen, will happen. It's what infinity means.

 

2. The Wheel has been in existence for an infinite period of time. (Discuss!) The DO has not won.

 

3. Therefore, a win for the DO can not happen.

 

Someone please tell Moridin..

But there was a moment of creation, so there has only been a finite number of turnings of the wheel to date.

 

Er, no. This is difficult for temporal beings like ourselves to get - some familiarity with maths and physics helps - but if time is part of the Creator's universe, you can't assign creation of time to any point in time. You might as well try to ask where creation happened!

 

To put it another way: from the Creator's PoV, creation acts at every point in space and every instant in time. From our PoV, we are tied to time, and have to think in terms of beginnings. But in the Wheel of Time, there are no beginnings and no endings.

[nnokwoodeye]

I think the biggest flaw in Ishmael reasoning is that he assume that the dark one wants to win. since, as was pointed out in this thread, the dark one should have logically won long ago it is not that certain. maybe the dark one is just doing the same thing he did in the book of job; testing people by making their lives miserable. the people who pass the test get to reborn in a better life.

[Mandro]

No, see, it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism or intelligence. Moridin fell for the Gamblers Fallacy.

Not really.Moridin thought that since the DO only needed to win once and the Wheel repeated itself ad infinum, his victory was guaranteed.If you take into account that only his thoughts seem to be the same while the other constant's (the champion of light's) are shifting it's even more of a safe bet to bet on him.

That is false, and is exactly the gamblers fallacy.

 

Any event with a non cumulative, non zero chance of occuring has chance of occuring that approaches 1 as the number of possible occurences approaches infinity. However, there is no point where the even will occur.

 

Playing on red each and every spin of the roulette wheel should have you 0 money out of pocket after an even number of spins on average, and ahead or behind by 1 on an odd number of spins, on average, because of the 50% chance (ignoring green 0). However, you can bet on red all day, the rest of your life actually, and you will never be guaranteed 1 win. Not getting the win becomes increasingly improbable, but remains quite possible.

 

Improbable possibilities are harder to grasp than probable impossibilities, its a trait of the human mind.

 

I never knew it as "The gamblers Fallacy," But there was this sorta quiz game a friend of mine had, and it really consisted of a bunch of "of course," and "Of course not" answers. Like "does a square mile, always have the same area as a mile square?" the answer is of course not. (that's not the actual answer, I'm just saying." and another question was, "everytime you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of it being heads, you just flipped 9 tails, what are the odds of flipping heads the next time?" the answer is "50/50" There is nothing that changed the variables on the coin flip, so the randomness remains 50/50, no matter the preceding events.

 

But that's an interesting argument added to moridins philosophy.

 

[edit: Just finished the thread, and exactly what I said, only in a better way, was already said, sorry.]