Bad luck
caused by randomness and poor returns caused by overvaluation have not occurred simultaneously.
Not exact matches
The apparent
randomness as well as the struggling and unpredictable meanderings that science sees in evolution, and which have
caused so much theological controversy, are just what we should expect if the world is in some way left to be itself
by the non-interfering goodness of a self - emptying God.
To state a disbelief in true
randomness in nature
by saying «God deosn't play dice» is just a metaphor and one that
caused a whole lot more trouble than it was ever worth.
there's really no room for the concept of an independent entity possessed of «will» in a worldview shaped
by cause and effect; the only place for «will» to retreat to is the zone of true
randomness, of complete uncertainty, which means that truly free will as such must be completely inscrutible [sic]... Statistical laws govern the decay of a block of uranium, but whether or not this atom of uranium chooses to fission in this instant is a completely unpredictable event — fundamentally unpredictable, something which simply can not be known — which is equally good evidence for the proposition that it's God's (or the atom's) will whether it splits or remains whole, as for the proposition that it's random chance.
Multiple imputation has the benefit of imputing missing values, however, because it creates multiple values for a given imputation, it reintroduces
randomness, avoiding over precision that is
caused by standard imputation.
Scientists currently believe that this
randomness is genuine, not just
caused by a lack of information.
In Fooled
by Randomness, Taleb describes how humans tend to look for patterns in
cause and effect where none exist.
To claim that if the change attributed to CO2 is less than that
caused by natural forcings is proof that the change could not have actually been
caused by CO2 seems to me to require
randomness in climate change.