Topic: How Truly Random is Random - page 3. (Read 1209 times)

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

Well, it's quite a interesting thread first of all and nice comparison and theory.

I think if you ask me randomness depends on the method being used, I mean if humans are randomly asked to pick numbers from 1 to 100 you will notice the the majority of the numbers will be between 30-80 because we tend to choose mid numbers while if you pick numbers generated by some script that is computerized then I believe it will be almost even for all the numbers.

You likely won't hit the same number again

But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)


"Post factum" here starts right after you see the first outcome (which your betting example proves). In other words, if you rolled high, bet on high next time (and vice versa). However, keep in mind that the house edge may still offset the tiny skew you are trying to exploit with this approach. Moreover, the outcomes in dice might in fact be pretty close to uniform after all (read, they are not truly random)


Strictly speaking, I started this thread specifically with "metaphysical" in mind. Gambling just happens to be the closest to it, apart from being the right place where to discuss these questions


If we are really like ants from the post above, the problem goes far beyond that

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll. They say, random processes "do not have memory", and thus it is impossible for past outcomes to affect future ones. So, while certain patterns are undoubtedly being formed, we can see them only post factum?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

For me a random process is when it starts with very similar initial condition and end with very different result. In mathematics maybe non linear is a better definition. Linear system have for characteristic that they can be reversed, and you can deduce initial conditions from the end result. With non linear process they cant be reversed. But there can still be a pattern to it, even if the pattern is too complex to have a clear relation between initial condition and result.

As far as i know hash fonctions in cryptography have non linear components to make them non reversible using linear functions. Doesnt mean there is not a pattern to it.

I would say that depends

That depends on one's frame of reference. You disagree with me because we are looking at the same thing from different levels. On your level, random patterns are a misnomer (which I basically agree with) but I only use this term to better get across my point. What I mean by random patterns should probably be properly called irregularities on their own. But these irregularities could be considered a pattern of randomness at the next logical level (see theory of logical types to better understand my idea)

Also, I think you may find that 'random' is defined differently by different people depending on their agenda, especially when tied in with affiliations etc. But random in principle should be as the term implies.

"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random.

dictionary.com: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"
Merriam-Webster: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern"
Cambridge Dictionary: "happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan or pattern"

Ramdoness in a game is very unpredictable, there is a possibility and a probabilty im each set of number. As long as it has too huge, multiple chances are being created it is too hard to predict whether that  could be chosen or what. I believe that randomness and probability and statistics are both in line and  both use in dice and betting game.

A computer code of random was so complex and I think there is it already consider random since there is no pattern,
like for example generating a random int number or making a for loop in the system to create a random number picker. You are just coding random.int and it was already coded in the language.
For me, it was already considered random but we don't know if the algorithms of the gambling sites were different because it code be altered by the programmer.

What make fractal random is that small change in initial condition can lead to a completely different result after a certain number of iterations, so it make them hard to predict.

If you pour the substance many times it will still take the same shape, and the sequence of outcome is still predictible, even if there is no explanation for it, statstics dont require To understand the phenomena to find regularities.

Its interesting to see also why they came up with perlin noise algorithm to give computer generated graphics a more natural look, fractal can be used to generate trees, and adding some perlin noise can change a straight line adding slight twist to it, and can be used to generate 1000 trees that will all look slightly different but still using same core fractal pattern. Even in hair animation they probably use some kind of noise to make it more "realistic".

I Guess its same with Snow flakes that They all Have same core pattern but not two are identical, even if they form in very similar conditions.

Noise is often used to increase the complexity of computer algorithm in a cheap manner, and can end up with result that are statistically close To natural occurrence, even with simple repetitive/ iterative algorithm and very simple primitive patterns.

Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures.   I remember they were thought to develop randomly.
Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball,  the substance will sticks on the invisible ball and take its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random.

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

The numbers on their own (i.e. their particular values) will remain random (i.e. the distribution of their values). But since you distribute them evenly across or along something, that distribution will not


People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all


Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

But even for gambling if the game is fair there should be a know distribution of events, its less and less random on longer period, the problem is having limited supply and not being able to play long enough to win the jackpot before you go bankrupt depending on the odds you take on a limited sequence.

That was and had been in fact intended as a question because you didn't say explicitly whether you consider the existing irregularities (I intentionally avoid the word patterns here) in the distribution of galaxies across the Universe as random. Truth be told, you are quite vague and ambiguous on this, deliberately or otherwise. In simple terms, make yourself clear on the matter

That's all I ask (note, not claim, assert, or challenge)


What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

And it is also lovely how a seemingly simple gambling question quickly escalated into a metaphysical one.

If we look for absolute randomness, I am afraid there is none. Not in a toss of a coin or a roll of a dice, not even in the movements of the atoms in a single object, and not in the workings of the universe. Everything factored in, there is no result which we can consider an absolute random one.   

Or perhaps, just like in freedom, justice, joy, and everything else, there are no absolutes. That applies to randomness as well.