Is anything Random?

[Robbo]

A computer on its own, is never random. NEVER!

If you picked those numbers a billion times, certain numbers would come out more than others and the nature of the 'random' algorithm would come unravveled.


The most common randomisation technique uses human input.
Such as mouse movements, which provide the numbers going into the algorithm (the seed).
A random seed can produce a random result.


Other ways in electronics to produce randomness is using noise.
Noise is a product of many things, including radio waves emmitted from the big bang. So its quite reliably random.

Noise produced by some semiconductors is random on a quantum level.

So with a random seed a computer can be random.

John, I was gonna let this post go but I just can't ....sorry mate.

Some people may think my reply is pedantic but I am sure you are aware, if you jump into this thread, or in fact into this forum, when you state something, then it has to be as near as one can make it, skeptic resistant.

The idea of anything being random is something that is in my understanding, pattern free.
It seems ironic to me that you quote the background radiation interference from the big bang as random when it was a bunch of scientists looking for the smoking gun of a 'pattern' in the sky to finally validate the big bang.

It could be argued, that if we knew the initial conditions, we could well predict the interference 'seed' you would look to as your random input.

 

[JamesH]

dude you think wayyyyyy to much but i agree with robbo, the computer will always be influenced by its programming, and the programming may be less in favour to the punter meaning less win's. however they may say the numbers are randomly computer generated which in theory yes they are.

 

[M600]

gas molecule collisions are random, radioactive decay is random etc
there are many random things, the most random being is if you cut a chickens head of and try predict where it will run to

 

[Robbo]

M600 - I'm afraid what sometimes seems random, is in fact, ignorance.

If you know the preceding state, and you also know the way in which whatever system you are looking at works, then you can predict future states.

This is science in action, and it seems science in action throws down the walls of 'chance' whenever it steps forward.

 

[M600]

most predictions are based on the average finding i believe thats why for example half life of a radioactive element will be different each time you try to measure it

 

[Robbo]

most predictions are based on the average finding i believe thats why for example half life of a radioactive element will be different each time you try to measure it

Sorry mate, I got zip idea what you mean here, can you expand a little please?

 

[SJS]

Sorry mate, I got zip idea what you mean here, can you expand a little please?

I think what he is trying to say is that;

Scientists found the "half life" for some radioactive substance a few times and took an average, Then called that its half life and had done. But if you were to go and check what the actuall half life was then it would be slightly different every time.

At least thats what i got from what he said.

 

[Robbo]

I think what he is trying to say is that;

Scientists found the "half life" for some radioactive substance a few times and took an average, Then called that its half life and had done. But if you were to go and check what the actuall half life was then it would be slightly different every time.

At least thats what i got from what he said.

HI SJS, I'm fully aware of what a half life mate is but I'm still none the wiser what is being said here in terms of generating a random event that would be independant of knowing the mechanics of radiactive decay and it's prior state for the purposes of prediction.

 

[M600]

dunno what you just said, im only doing a level physics so im not trying to be a smart ass or anything,
what i meant to say is in the context of radioactive decay, it decays roughly half its mass at a given time (not sure if its mass :S). so lets say you get a class of kids to stand up and roll a dice, if a student rolls a number between 1 and 3 he/she sits down. since the probability of sitting is half it is expected that half the class will sit down first round, then another half the next etc, you will get a graph of exponential decay which looks like this:
http://mcat-review.org/exponential-decay-graph.gif
however since the process is random and the kids cant predict the dice roll it is possible for only one child to sit down first round, then the rest of them the next.
Since radio active decay process is random people use probability and average to work out the half life and get the above graph for people to base research etc on
hope that explains.....

 

[Robbo]

dunno what you just said, im only doing a level physics so im not trying to be a smart ass or anything,
what i meant to say is in the context of radioactive decay, it decays roughly half its mass at a given time (not sure if its mass :S). so lets say you get a class of kids to stand up and roll a dice, if a student rolls a number between 1 and 3 he/she sits down. since the probability of sitting is half it is expected that half the class will sit down first round, then another half the next etc, you will get a graph of exponential decay which looks like this:
http://mcat-review.org/exponential-decay-graph.gif
however since the process is random and the kids cant predict the dice roll it is possible for only one child to sit down first round, then the rest of them the next.
Since radio active decay process is random people use probability and average to work out the half life and get the above graph for people to base research etc on
hope that explains.....

M600, as I said mate, I do understand what half life refers to and the mechanics thereof; my point was, if we knew the underlying rules and initial conditions, then even radioactive decay can then become more predictable.

Think of it like this, if you were an ant living under a glass chess board, a rather intelligent ant mind you, and when you looked up, every now and then a piece would move ...to you, Mr Ant, it would seem quite random, very random in fact ......but...if you then went to Ant School and they taught you the rules of chess..then those seemingly random movements wouldn't seem so random .... you might not be able to accurately assess each move I realise, but you could certainly be less inaccurate when you understand the rules of play and even more so when you understand what each side sets out to achieve.

Sometimes random behaviour is merely a lack of awareness of the rules of the game....
I hope this explains my position a little better.