Comment Gauss turns over in his grave (Score 1) 205
As many have pointed out, there is nothing new or nothing surprising in the claim. What the statistical theories claim is that if a variable is truly (mathematically) random the statistical distribution asymptotes to a Gaussian distribution (or the Bell curve). That's not an observation or a fact. That's a theorem which one can prove, in other words, it's more like a definition of a "true randomness" of a variable. Roughly speaking, if something is truly random, its distribution will begin to look like a Bell curve. The real question is, "what is truly random?"
It's almost nonsensical to state that the nature does not follow the Gaussian curve just because a statistical variable does not follow it. Perhaps it tells you more about the variable itself. If a variable x has a perfect Gaussian distribution, the distribution of log(x) will look nothing like a Gaussian distribution. Does that tell us the Gaussian curve is not the normal curve? It only tells us that even if x is truly random log(x) is not.
It's almost nonsensical to state that the nature does not follow the Gaussian curve just because a statistical variable does not follow it. Perhaps it tells you more about the variable itself. If a variable x has a perfect Gaussian distribution, the distribution of log(x) will look nothing like a Gaussian distribution. Does that tell us the Gaussian curve is not the normal curve? It only tells us that even if x is truly random log(x) is not.
