Oh, you think it sounds interesting, really? Um, yeah...! Of course I can expound upon...! Well, a few days ago -- maybe it was a weeks, but considering the way in which it created a divisive ruffle amongst the bird brains, it felts more intense -- my friend and I were playing rock-paper-scissors. And, well, we played a best of three, and I won two sets by playing randomly. I mean, to clarify, I won the first set, he won the second, and then I won the third. Which, as I admit, is a faulty logic, but even the infinite monkey theorem as a metaphysical argument doesn’t hold up under specific circumstances, which thus diminishes my argument, but otherwise -- I will get to that. Anyways, my friend decides to play more intentionally by rematching to another best of three, whatever have you, and I win the first game, he wins the second game, and I win the third game. Now, under normal predicaments about rock-paper-scissors, the fact that I won is luck, which is a statistical quantity justified by 25%. Under his assumption, given his intentional, methodical style trying to predict what a human might do, he assumes that I am a psychological matrix, in which we cross dangerously into game theory. But, even then, the potential outcomes are still predicated on the idea that I, too, am choosing strategically when, perhaps, I may just as well be choosing random. And I suppose his argument delves into that matrix where the devil forces people to play rock-paper-scissors to get out of purgatory, but rock-paper scissors is nothing but a grid of matrixes, indicated by how the results are completely mirrored, in some fashion. But, then, I wonder, if his argument regarding the mathematical probability of ties holds water. In which, now I must go to the lab...! But, until then, I think about perhaps the philosophical frameworks, given that Lockean ideals don’t always translate well -- empirical data does nothing when, at the core, the random functions on some random multitude. Given, random is perhaps not perfect, but the game is still predicated on random, uncontrollable factors that, while predictable to a certain degree, which perhaps I adjust my argument to include calculated randomness, but to assert from his standpoint of philosophical gambit... well, hmmm... I suppose I now understand that the probability of a tie decreases with every resulting tie, which thus decreases the chance of pure randomness into, what might be argued, the liberalism of rock-paper-scissors...! FASCINATING!!! I must report this to the bird brains!!!
