True randomness: Does it exist?

g💚jira · November 16, 2014, 10:50:06 PM

T4R

Dusty's thread got me thinking about the subject again. I recall Turkey bringing it up a while ago, and I then dismissed it [and agreed with him] by saying that true randomness does exist. At this time I was a monumental moron, so I was conflating true randomness with unpredictability. Soon after I read some of Gregory Chaitin's works and I was convinced of the exact opposite conclusion.

Now that I'm rethinking all of this, I'm genuinely undecided. Whaddaya think? Does true randomness [distinct from unpredictabilitychaos, remember!] exist from a mathematical POV?

Dustin · November 16, 2014, 10:53:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Saleem · November 16, 2014, 10:59:13 PM

This thread makes me think of infinite improbability.

Hahahaha very funny Zonda · November 16, 2014, 11:08:28 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Cheat · November 16, 2014, 11:22:37 PM

I used to think so, but then I read about the gameshow question with 3 doors (like off of 21) and realized you can actually use data from random outcomes to predict future outcomes...

Sandtrap · November 16, 2014, 11:33:26 PM

Quote from: Cheat on November 16, 2014, 11:22:37 PM

I used to think so, but then I read about the gameshow question with 3 doors (like off of 21) and realized you can actually use data from random outcomes to predict future outcomes...

The same applies with lotto numbers. If you have enough numbers, for, say, a 10 year period, and you break everything down and count every variable that you can, a clear pattern starts to become present, and you are left with the probability for each number, potentially even at each time.

Super Irish · November 17, 2014, 01:41:10 AM

I think things can be random, but we are good at picking out patterns. We can make the random follow laws or fit an equation, but only because we've modified the numbers so they appear to make some sense. Think log graphs, or how we can make any sort of data on a graph a law, or make specific equations for different things i.e. Boyle's Laws, Thermodynamics, half-life, etc etc

More Than Mortal · November 17, 2014, 01:56:25 AM

Nope.

And I lost marks for that belief on a Foundations of Advanced Mathematics exam I did a few years ago >.>

Fuckers.

g💚jira · November 17, 2014, 09:46:22 AM

Quote from: Cheat on November 16, 2014, 11:22:37 PM

I used to think so, but then I read about the gameshow question with 3 doors (like off of 21) and realized you can actually use data from random outcomes to predict future outcomes...

The situation in that case is just a faulty categorization of randomness. It's not a random scenario in the first place. To avoid falling into that kind of thing you have to recognize that you're being presented more information about the problem and reevaluate your odds.

... I get the feeling I'm not explaining this correctly. Whenever I try to explain that darn problem in any form my brain just decides to exit my skull and drown itself in a lake or something.

The Lord Slide Rule · November 17, 2014, 09:51:11 AM

What do you mean by true randomness?

When I think true randomness I think of there being no logic to it.

With math, basically being logic, I'd think not.

Flee · November 17, 2014, 09:53:38 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

g💚jira · November 17, 2014, 10:00:38 AM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 17, 2014, 09:51:11 AM

What do you mean by true randomness?

When I think true randomness I think of there being no logic to it.

With math, basically being logic, I'd think not.

Huh, that's a lot more difficult a question to answer than I imagined. No method of predicting an outcome based on any form of algorithm? I swear there was a distinct difference to unpredictability that I came up with before...

Now that you mention it, wouldn't a simplification be "events occur without any causation?"

Hmmm...

Anonymous (User Deleted) · November 17, 2014, 10:01:26 AM

Nope.

The Lord Slide Rule · November 17, 2014, 10:07:36 AM

Quote from: GodspeedGojira! on November 17, 2014, 10:00:38 AM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 17, 2014, 09:51:11 AM
What do you mean by true randomness?

When I think true randomness I think of there being no logic to it.

With math, basically being logic, I'd think not.

Huh, that's a lot more difficult a question to answer than I imagined. No method of predicting an outcome based on any form of algorithm? I swear there was a distinct difference to unpredictability that I came up with before...

Now that you mention it, wouldn't a simplification be "events occur without any causation?"

Hmmm...

Unpredictability, I generally think chaos theory. Where causation from one moment to the next is obvious but the system considered overall is highly unstable and unpredictable.

Then there is the quantum mechanical style of unpredictability, still it can be shown to follow a logic or chain of causation.

Turkey · November 17, 2014, 10:59:05 AM

Heisenberg's Uncertainty implies a randomness to behavior of subatomic particles, and quantum mechanics necessitates randomness at a quantum level. Radioactive decay is also a random process.

But in typical day-to-day stuff? No, everything has a cause and effect, but the inability to perceive those causes leads to labeling something as random.

The Lord Slide Rule · November 17, 2014, 11:25:37 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 17, 2014, 10:59:05 AM

Heisenberg's Uncertainty implies a randomness to behavior of subatomic particles, and quantum mechanics necessitates randomness at a quantum level. Radioactive decay is also a random process.

But in typical day-to-day stuff? No, everything has a cause and effect, but the inability to perceive those causes leads to labeling something as random.

I guess it depends on how one defines "truly random". To me quantum mechanical uncertainty isn't true randomness. You can make predictions about quantum systems, yes they're probability based but true randomness ( to me at least) seems to imply that all bets are off (kek). Quantum systems can still be shown to follow certain relations (ie. there is this much energy in the system therefor the outcome will most likely be so and so)

I guess this where we bring causality into the mix and try to decide whether it is a good gauge of whether something is random or not.

g💚jira · November 17, 2014, 11:28:38 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 17, 2014, 10:59:05 AM

Heisenberg's Uncertainty implies a randomness to behavior of subatomic particles, and quantum mechanics necessitates randomness at a quantum level. Radioactive decay is also a random process.

But in typical day-to-day stuff? No, everything has a cause and effect, but the inability to perceive those causes leads to labeling something as random.

I read about a Pf by normality in irrational numbers [or at least an unexplained occurrence which wouldn't make sense without true randomness] as well. Of course, I have no idea what that is, but...

spoopy octopvs · November 17, 2014, 11:57:49 AM

but muh rng

Turkey · November 17, 2014, 03:12:29 PM

I guess if we're distinguishing between uncertainty and randomness, I'd have to say that a true, pure randomness probably doesn't exist. Third law, bruh. Everything has an impulse for it's behavior, regardless of how observable it is.

But there's plenty of other cases where randomness in more vernacular sense is appropriate, like I in statistics. We typically call something stochastic or random when its cause is indeterminate or beyond the scope of the research. It doesn't follow a uniform behavior, but it does follow a definable probability distribution.

g💚jira · November 17, 2014, 03:21:15 PM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 17, 2014, 03:12:29 PM

I guess if we're distinguishing between uncertainty and randomness, I'd have to say that a true, pure randomness probably doesn't exist. Third law, bruh. Everything has an impulse for it's behavior, regardless of how observable it is.

But there's plenty of other cases where randomness in more vernacular sense is appropriate, like I in statistics. We typically call something stochastic or random when its cause is indeterminate or beyond the scope of the research. It doesn't follow a uniform behavior, but it does follow a definable probability distribution.

That's actually what Chaitin kind of mentions. He references Godel's structure of proofs, and comes to the conclusion that we will never be able to determine that randomness actually exists. IIRC what he basically does is use a contrapositive- computing algorithm to determine a digit in a number DNE => randomness- to show that we will never be able to prove that randomness exists. Proving that contrapositive is impossible unless you're, well, God.

clum clum · November 17, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

I don't think humans can make true randomness, but the universe is completely random in what it does.

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

More Than Mortal · November 17, 2014, 03:30:38 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

I don't think humans can make true randomness, but the universe is completely random in what it does.

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

Surely that doesn't make sense.

Humans aren't apart or separate from the functioning of the Universe at a fundamental level.

clum clum · November 17, 2014, 03:37:55 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 03:30:38 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
I don't think humans can make true randomness, but the universe is completely random in what it does.

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/
Surely that doesn't make sense.

Humans aren't apart or separate from the functioning of the Universe at a fundamental level.

You are right. I refute what I said. Sleep deprivation makes one not think correctly. Still though, Chaos Theory is worth a read to those interested in randomness.

Death · November 17, 2014, 03:43:47 PM

I don't believe so, every idea stems from something.

The Lord Slide Rule · November 17, 2014, 03:58:10 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:37:55 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
I don't think humans can make true randomness, but the universe is completely random in what it does.

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/
Surely that doesn't make sense.

Humans aren't apart or separate from the functioning of the Universe at a fundamental level.

You are right. I refute what I said. Sleep deprivation makes one not think correctly. Still though, Chaos Theory is worth a read to those interested in randomness.

I wouldn't call chaotic systems, in the theoretical sense, random. From moment to moment, considered as individual subsystems they can appear quite predictable but considered over a whole the system becomes quite unstable and unpredictable. This is simply due to the highly non-linear nature of chaotic systems and heavy dependence on initial conditions of the relevant variables.

g💚jira · November 17, 2014, 04:07:25 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 17, 2014, 03:58:10 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:37:55 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 17, 2014, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: Numb Digger on November 17, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
I don't think humans can make true randomness, but the universe is completely random in what it does.

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/
Surely that doesn't make sense.

Humans aren't apart or separate from the functioning of the Universe at a fundamental level.

You are right. I refute what I said. Sleep deprivation makes one not think correctly. Still though, Chaos Theory is worth a read to those interested in randomness.
I wouldn't call chaotic systems, in the theoretical sense, random. From moment to moment, considered as individual subsystems they can appear quite predictable but considered over a whole the system becomes quite unstable and unpredictable. This is simply due to the highly non-linear nature of chaotic systems and heavy dependence on initial conditions of the relevant variables.

Couldn't have said it any better!

Doctor Doom · November 17, 2014, 11:24:21 PM

I had a really interesting discussion with a friend about this a month or two ago.

The short answer is no, but certain patterns are so complex they're near-impossible to predict. I once saw an experiment where there was a jar full of two hundred marbles, and somebody was blindfolded and told to reach in and pull one out. No matter how irregular they reached, there was apparently always an unconscious pattern in how they reached into the jar. Even in a similar exercise with a computer, the computer still did not choose with absolutely no pattern.