Knowing everything about Baccarat with certainty. Possible?
Impossible. Utterly impossible. Sorry, for those of you that come across, "I know everything about the game of Baccarat and then some--I can show you and you certainly can profit from it". I would run so far, so fast, the opposite way--you would do a double take at how fast I actually accomplished getting out of there!
Let us take a look at knowing something with absolute certainty, especially in a game like baccarat where difference and opposites prevail without reasoning and of course, within the exact same set of rules and protocols.
#1) It is certainly possible to be absolutely certain ... and absolutely wrong. Correct operations upon mistaken premises do not generate useful results. 1+1=2 only if we agree on definitions of those symbols and their interpretation which make that a true statement; if we do, then it is true by definition within that system. We know that math is self-consistent, and we know it produces results which make useful predictions about the real world, and we find ways to refine it when if falls short (such as complex numbers)... that's as much truth as science ever offers.
#2) Yes it is through a process called "Deductive reasoning". Deductive reasoning implies that if all of the premises are true and if the inferences are valid, it follows that the conclusion must be true. Here's an example.
I have a bag full of black marbles. I will pull out a marble and record what color it is until the bag is empty. It follows that I will only have recorded that there are black balls in the bag.
Let's break this argument down:
1. I have a bag full of black marbles.
2. I will pull out a marble and record what color it is until the bag is empty.
3. I will only have recorded that there are black balls in the bag.
Given that premise (1) and (2) are true, it follows that the conclusion (3) must be true.
To answer the question that is asked the most, in the event of an argument that uses deductive reasoning, it is possible for something to be known in absolute certainty. This works in theory, however in practice it is harder to say that all given premises are true. And that my friends is the same as baccarat wagering, exactly! And, most all of the wagering mistakes will originate right there, exactly with that. The player will see it, argue it and conclude it to be true or at least what should happen.
#3) Conclusion: A general criterion of truth is self-contradictory (and all criteria of truth about empirical things are therefore arbitrary).
Since above we have called the content of a cognition its matter, one must therefore say that no general sign of the truth of the matter of cognition can be demanded, because it is self-contradictory. Wagering the way most of us do it or apply it, is actually a demand for the shoe to follow our thoughts and criterion instead of the opposite way around. Think about it, think about it hard.
So if we speak of any criterion for the truth of the matter of cognition (i.e. anything that is given by sensibility in the form of (empirical) intuition, the answer has to be that there cannot be certainty, as truth value will always be contingent, depending on empirical habits and findings.
#4) I have a bag full of black marbles.
How do we know that we have this bag? We rely explicitly upon a world of phenomena, limited to our own perception, and uncertain of the extension of that perception to any sense of universality. There is an implicit ontology of "having", related ultimately to the "being" of these black marbles. There is a Cartesian instability to that existence, but we cannot rely on God's willing hand to move things back into place like Descartes did. Rather, we must move to the assumption that the bag does exist, but keep in mind that this assumption works not in any universal sense but rather in our own "life-world" (this is from Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences). We cannot know that these black marbles exist in any universal sense, but we can observe that in our world, that they do exist.
This is not relativism - this is bracketing universality not to the world, but to all experiences of the world. Thus, that we draw only black marbles does not serve as a universal truth (because can we know with certainty of the a prior world outside of our experience?), but rather, as a norm. This is kind of leading all up to Habermasian communicative rationality, but I'll leave you to research the topic (though I don't recommend it particularly as a model for political-moral norms, it works perfectly well as a model for scientific rationality).
If you assume a human makes errors in logical deduction 5% of the time, then it seems to follow that it is impossible for a human to know anything (e.g. how to know 1+1=2). In which case it seems that the answer to my question is unknown. This is confusing to me, any thoughts?
Why does the human make these errors in logical deduction? Is it not simple, if given a set of axioms, that the conclusions may follow beautifully into place? The assumption of the "imperfect human" (imperfect in that they cannot calculate 1+1=2) is somewhat facetious - it's really that the human's (lack of) experience of the truthfulness of a validity claim (1+1=2) that can bring them to an incorrect conclusion.
#5) In the Bayesian interpretation of probability, probability represents subjective belief. So there may be an ideal world with a perfect mathematician can make a deduction, and be 100% guaranteed to be correct. But a Bayesian reasoner in the real world must consider the possibility of errors, deception, or even crazy hypotheses like false memories. It must attach probabilities to all beliefs, and consider all hypotheses, far too many in the game of baccarat to stick to and score all correct or even the majority of your wagers correct, hand after hand after hand.
Humans are certainly not perfect. We make mistakes all the time. If nothing else, the neurons that run your brain are somewhat random and probabilistic, and you can't ever be 100% sure that your thoughts are memories are correct.
#6) All proofs or arguments (deductive or otherwise) are finite; if they weren't, the conclusion could never be reached. They rely on premises, and those premises, forming the basis for the argument, are unproven.
You could create a proof of those premises; but that new proof would in turn itself rely on unproven premises. So, the problem is inescapable. Ultimately, all deductive reasoning depends on premises that aren't deductively proven.
Arguments often also rely on auxiliary premises that aren't explicitly present. They are background assumptions.
Premises fall into three categories: arbitrary premises, like those chosen for an abstract formal system; provisional or working premises; and self-evident truths.
And, right here in #6 the brutal truth and reality will surface as to why baccarat is so hard to consistently be correct in the hand after hand after hand scenario based upon your experience, knowledge and statistical deductions applied, etc., etc., and so on!
#7) And about computer, statisticals and testing: You see, computer people and believers need to be able to reason about the outside world, and to do that, they come up with models. Models are nice because they are finite and you can not only reason, but you can also prove hypotheses, baccarat wagering selection and much more. For example in a model of the traffic lights of an intersection, the traffic light can only be green or yellow or red, and not all at the same time, or dim red, or blue, because you define the model that way. Simple, the model is what the tester, the prover or the author is saying, it always will be one way or another and if not his way, at least proving your way will not and cannot work well. Tell me if I am wrong!
You can make models in mathematics, for example. If you take all natural numbers, define the + operator to mean your usual addition, then you can prove that 1 + 1 = 2 definitively. However, there is nothing preventing you from defining the model so that 2 + 2 = 5, it would just be a rather useless model.
Now, the reason we need models is because it's impossible to reason about the real world. And there are two ways to illustrate this.
Firstly, there is language. If you dig a little bit into linguistics, because trying to understand and generate natural language is a problem we've been working on for a while, you'll see that the biggest problem with human language is that it's ambiguous. And since our natural language is the only tool we have for reasoning about the real world, we can't really have absolute truths. Some people will agree and realize this and most will not. Because that (most) as I just said, always have to have it their way no matter what.
And for that same reason, it's so hard for a computer to understand natural language. Since I'm not a linguist, I unfortunately can't really go much into detail explaining why language is ambiguous, but think about this: if I say, "There is a cup on the table," then that is a very ambiguous statement. What is a cup? Is it a cup because it's atoms are arranged in a special way? Is it a cup because you use it like a cup? Is it a cup because it has a handle that looks a certain way? Would you still call it a cup if it were made out of a radioactive material? Would you still call it a cup if it had a hole in the bottom? Is it still a cup if it didn't have a handle? You see, the word "cup" is not well-defined, it's another model.
To be able to have absolute truths, we'd need to have absolute knowledge, and we are unable to get that because we simply don't have the mental capacity. I dare say, to have absolute truths about the universe, we'd need to know the position and velocity of every single atom, electron, neutron, positron, neutrino, quark, photon and whatever news things the physicists discover, and to hold that information we'd need a brain that is large enough, and to have a brain that is large enough, it'd need to be larger than the universe because we need more than one atom to store a bit of information, and with a brain that size, the three-dimensional interconnections would be too slow, so we'd ideally need to live in a higher dimension as well.
My point is, our perception is limited by what we can see (two-dimensional image of a narrow range of photons), hear (short range acoustical signals), feel, smell, and process (with our inherently ambiguous and limited language). So, in effect we are limited to reasoning about models that we make of the world. That is how most of science works anyways, and the goal is to expand the model to make it as close to the real world as possible, while still allowing us to reason properly. It is just that when talking, explaining and deciphering baccarat, it all has second and third or more meanings that do apply and are very necessary to properly understand and become successful at baccarat wagering, etc.
Once again and I know it surely gets old after the hundred millionth time, that is exactly the reason all casinos provide pencil, paper, scorecards, scoreboards and many even allow you to use a cell phone at the table. There is a way to win, might not be what some of you think or desire or as long and consistent, but there most certainly is a way.