Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Is anything Random?

Mactoshdog

LIKES RED
Oct 12, 2008
734
1
53
32
North East, Sunderland
^^^
!!!!


my fried wrote a program to pick a random number from 1 - 50 on visual basic, the number 27 appeared more than half the time.. lol
im thinking its not all that random.
 

Robbo

Owner of this website
Jul 5, 2001
13,116
2,157
448
London
www.p8ntballer.com
Randomness is determined by the entropy in a system. A computer, with no external stimuli, cannot generate randomness, only pseudorandomness. That is, it may to all intents and purposes appear random, but it follows a predictable pattern. In many cases, by observing a sequence of pseudorandom data, one can determine what will follow. Thus it obviously can't be random, because randomness must be unpredictable. The most common use of randomness in computing nowadays is cryptography, which requires that the randomness is, as far as possible, entirely unpredictable; otherwise the potential exists to determine what the content of the encrypted data is, or to forge an encrypted message.

So mechanisms exist to introduce entropy into the equation. Entropy in this context means unpredictability -- it is the amount of "unguessable" data which has been fed into a system. Computers often generate entropy by using the timing of unpredictable external stimuli, such as keystrokes or network activity. Feed these into the pseudorandom number generator, and what comes out is significantly more random (i.e. less predictable) than the basic pseudorandom number generator. But it is (theoretically) possible to influence the random output by controlling the entropy going in, which must be a consideration in any case where true randomness is needed.

Electronic circuits needing randomness sometimes use semiconductor junctions known for their noisy behaviour (usually an undesirable characteristic!), and feed the entropy from this noise into the generator. But these methods are prone to producing biased results, which may be unpredictable but not statistically well-distributed. They can also be affected by external sources such as electrical interference, which again makes them less suitable where a high degree of randomness is essential.

If you want real randomness, you want one of these: http://www.idquantique.com/products/quantis.htm

This device works, in simple terms, by firing individual photons (light) at a partially reflective surface. About half the light will be reflected into one sensor, the rest will pass through the surface into a second sensor. But an individual photon cannot do both; it will either be reflected or it won't. Now, quantum theory tells us that it is not possible to predict in this case which individual photons will go which way. We know that about half will go each way, but where each individual photon ends up cannot be predicted.

This is where we finally meet true randomness. Randomness, of the true variety, is very important to quantum physics. For instance, Heisenberg's Undertainty Principle tells us that we cannot predict both the position and the momentum of an electron at the same time. In other words, you can calculate one property, but the other is unpredictable, i.e. truly random. So, in the quantum world, randomness really does exist. Einstein struggled with this concept for a large portion of his career, when the new generation of physicists developed the field of science he had largely created. He could not accept that there came a point at which things could not be determined mathematically, hence his famous (paraphrased) quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." However, it seems, God does play dice with the universe, and some things truly cannot be predicted.
I been away for a few weeks and now I'm back, I have a few loose ends, or rather threads, to tie up.
I'll start with this one; Rabies, with no disrespect intended mate, your post smacks of it being copied, or at the very least, 'heavily quoted' shall we say ...... it makes no difference I suppose and I apologise if I interpreted it wrong, your post just came across as rather formal that's all.

Anyways, I wanna ask you a question in true Socratic form, we have this notion of randomness; Do you not think there is cause for concern about any system we do not fully understand and then seemingly deriving an absolute from that system, an absolute which in this case is random behaviour?

Heisenberg does detail an enormous amount of information concerning sub-atomic beahviours but he didn't explain it all and I am saying, it is scientifically dangerous to then have a derivative of that work as a cornerstone of applied mathematics and physics.


Any serious debate concerning random behaviours will almost certainly default to Heisenberg's work seemingly dotting the i's and crossing the t's of any doubting folk and in so doing condemning Einstein's Godly observation to the error basket.
...But for the life of me Rabies, I just can't seem to accept the absolute idea of 'randomness'.

I am suggesting, what you may deem as being random is merely ignorance of that system in another guise; after all mate, if we look at any system whereby we do not fully understand all its component operations, some of those operations can potentially seem 'random'.
My assertion is, we cannot truly have random behaviours all the time we do not fully understand everything concerning that particular system of operation.

I am pretty sure you can see what I am getting at here Rabies.

Once again mate, apologies if I read the tone of your post wrong, it may well be I have been away too long.
 

Bedlam

Gone crazy, back soon...
Randomness is determined by the entropy in a system. A computer, with no external stimuli, cannot generate randomness, only pseudorandomness. That is, it may to all intents and purposes appear random, but it follows a predictable pattern. In many cases, by observing a sequence of pseudorandom data, one can determine what will follow. Thus it obviously can't be random, because randomness must be unpredictable. The most common use of randomness in computing nowadays is cryptography, which requires that the randomness is, as far as possible, entirely unpredictable; otherwise the potential exists to determine what the content of the encrypted data is, or to forge an encrypted message.

So mechanisms exist to introduce entropy into the equation. Entropy in this context means unpredictability -- it is the amount of "unguessable" data which has been fed into a system. Computers often generate entropy by using the timing of unpredictable external stimuli, such as keystrokes or network activity. Feed these into the pseudorandom number generator, and what comes out is significantly more random (i.e. less predictable) than the basic pseudorandom number generator. But it is (theoretically) possible to influence the random output by controlling the entropy going in, which must be a consideration in any case where true randomness is needed.
I have some real issues with what you have said here. Your first paragraph talks about cryptography and its use of "randomness" or "unpredictability". Cryptography is not about predictability, its about probability.

Secondly, entropy is a measure of the "randomness" of a closed system given a set of starting criteria. You do not add entropy to a system, you do not generate entropy and any notion of controlling entropy is wholly misguided and misunderstood.

So, I would say on that basis, that the argument is flawed.
 

Robbo

Owner of this website
Jul 5, 2001
13,116
2,157
448
London
www.p8ntballer.com
I have some real issues with what you have said here. Your first paragraph talks about cryptography and its use of "randomness" or "unpredictability". Cryptography is not about predictability, its about probability.

Secondly, entropy is a measure of the "randomness" of a closed system given a set of starting criteria. You do not add entropy to a system, you do not generate entropy and any notion of controlling entropy is wholly misguided and misunderstood.

So, I would say on that basis, that the argument is flawed.
Bed - your take on the absolute nature of 'randomness' as Rabies has outlined???
 
I agree that everything which appears to be random, could be the result of some variables we dont know or understand.

But without knowing everything you could never confirm or deny that statement with any certainty.
Knowing everything is an absurd concept as it implies we can move from finite knowledge to infinite knowledge.




I heard about the example Rabies offered of the partially reflecting surface.
According to Quantum theory that is random.
One seed produces more than one possible outcome even when all else is equal.

For those burdened with the practical applications of randomness we have to beleive the quantum physicians.



As soon as the argument starts to include things that are impossible (like a person having infinite knowledge) its more a question of faith or beleif than science.
Or perhaps I should say faith or beleif IN science.
 

Robbo

Owner of this website
Jul 5, 2001
13,116
2,157
448
London
www.p8ntballer.com
OK, I've read your take on it but it does seem to being getting involved with semantics .. I can understand why though, we need to be perfectly clear about what we are talking about and it's true, some people fail to distinguish between probability and predictability thus affecting any conclusions they arrive at.

Anyways, it seems we agree (I think) on the subject of randomness in that you seem to be aligning yourself with the skeptics, leastwise that's the conclusion I come to after reading your post.

As soon as people (scientists) begin talking about 'prior states' and probability, I don't see how any well meaning scientist can then introduce any notion of randomness.

In a truly random system, the very thought of prior states is completely academic and of no value whatsoever, however complex any predictive software you may have running to intepret system behaviours.

If you connected all the computers in the world, had the best software scientists working for a 100 years, they would still not be able to predict, or make an approximation to, any specific state of a truly random system, no matter how many prior states are looked at..random is random.

All that remains is, for us to come to the conclusion, that it is impossible for our universe to offer up any incidence of randomness unless of course we wanna introduce the idea of our universe spontaneously creating itself..and as I have said, that's ludicrous, leastwise in my head it is.

We live in a causal universe, that much we know, just because there are some things that 'appear' random, and even when experimental (Heisenberg) data suggests randomness, it is merely a veil being pulled across the underlying mechanisms that provokes us to believe there is a truly random outcome.
 

Robbo

Owner of this website
Jul 5, 2001
13,116
2,157
448
London
www.p8ntballer.com
I agree that everything which appears to be random, could be the result of some variables we dont know or understand.

But without knowing everything you could never confirm or deny that statement with any certainty.

John, it's not as if this is without precedent mate, I mean, what I am suggesting here is hardly scientific heresy.

The history of science is festooned with the constant overturning of previous dogmas giving way to a new era of enlightenment... science merely documents this evolution mate.

I'm no heretic, far from it, my roots are firmly embedded in science and (hopefully) rational thought, as are yours but I am resistant to put this little problem into that drawer ('Those that cannot be proved') because I feel it somehow devalues this stance, though at the moment, there is no logical alternative.