Does "random" exist ?

1. Jazztastic

Joined:
Apr 4, 2011
Messages:
896
Resources:
7
Spells:
6
Tutorials:
1
Resources:
7
This has got to be trolling.

What you're describing is probability. It had nothing to do with the outcome of the coin toss, only the accuracy of the prediction. What I'm saying is that it is possible to predict the outcome of a coin toss, not that statistically it's more likely for X outcome to occur. I believe we have a quote for what just happened.

The irony is so thick you can almost touch it. Let me rephrase a final time for your benefit. I was not talking probability. I was talking physics.

Once again you missed my point entirely. I wasn't arguing randomness as evidence to randomness, I was using better classification in order to communicate my answer more clearly.

"Random" is too broad a term and I only believe it exists conditionally. My condition, any system which can be predicted accurately is not random. So once again returning to Pi, it cannot be accurately predicted. A coin toss is what is known as a pseudo-random event. Given all the information it would be possible for someone to accurately predict the outcome with 100% certainty. Hence, pseudo-random systems exist and are not random, the only appear random to an uneducated observer. True randomness does exist, and it is unpredictable, such as the number Pi. The question "Does 'Random' exist?" is too broad in scope and the answers are too conditional to give a blanket yes or no answer.

You have obviously missed my point.

Cannot say that you can't predict a random event? If you could predict it, then it wouldn't be random.

Given more data you would be able to predict a pseudo-random system. Predict the next 10,000 places of Pi, based on the hundreds of millions we already know. Can you do it? Can anyone do it? No. It is random. That is your flaw, you're assuming that something that isn't random, is random.

But, but but but, but, you just said you can't say that you cannot predict a random event. WHICH ARGUEMENT ARE YOU GOING WITH BRAMBLECLAW? DID YOU ADD TOO MANY NEGATIVES IN THAT SENTENCE?

No that is not random.

So effectively your answer is too broad to effectively answer the question. An effectively isn't specific enough for serious debate. And once again you can view randomness with ignorance, but the random patterns are not derived solely from ignorance. That pattern will still be random whether you know it in it's entirety or not.

WAIT YOU CAN'T PREDICT A RANDOM EVENT EVEN WITH DATA? HOLY SHIT HOLD THE PRESSES HE MIGHT'VE ACTUALLY JUST REALIZE MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

Which is what YOU are arguing against.

Effectively I'm doing that but ACTUALLY I'm doing this - classifying terms in a similar family in order to better represent my answer.

Whut.

How do you think we find every digit of Pi? By using a function. Since Pi is truely random without a way to observe it, we could only guess as to the actual value of Pi. To observe Pi, we divide the circumfrence of a semicircle by it's radian. HOW IS THAT NOT A FUNCTION?

You don't define randomness, and you don't set randomness. The computers use a pseudo-random system.

All primes are linked in that they only have 2 factors. Didn't expect that one did you?

Finally, let me quote myself, on my own viewpoint, that was very clearly and explicitly stated.

Since it is apparently impossible to deduce from that statement, let me say that I believe random does exist.

2. ManYouAreEvil

Joined:
Oct 12, 2007
Messages:
83
Resources:
0
Resources:
0
Determinism > randomness

3. Verhalthur

Joined:
Nov 21, 2007
Messages:
372
Resources:
2
Tools:
1
Template:
1
Resources:
2
That seems to be one of the primary arguments to this thread.

However, determinism is a worldview, and as such is entirely based on opinion.

There is no real right answer here and no way to prove either side.

The concept itself is vague enough to have made this thread have about a page of confusion.

Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
4. Brambleclaw

Joined:
Apr 3, 2010
Messages:
910
Resources:
0
Resources:
0
Okay lets just put it in simple terms and remove all the flush which comes with it. I am agreeing with Boris' view point but say it is a fact.
Simply because if you know all of the outcomes then it no longer becomes a prediction or a system. You get a mathematical function instead which will describe this event. With this mathematical function there will always be the same answer put out depending on what you put in.

If F(X)=3X+500
Then if i put in 1 i get 503
If i put in 1 a 2nd time i get 503
if i do it a 3rd time i get 503
It does not change or repeat.

Also your counter argument is also agreeing with me. I was saying the only case random could exist is with mathematical phrases that have no link. Such as irrational numbers etc. Although yes you can work out Irrational numbers and primes however there is no Shortcut or single function for it. It would just take a lot of working out to get a more and more accurate answer

The fact that all primes only have 2 factors it not a mathematical link. It is just a description. By that logic 2 is linked to 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 because they are both part of the Arabic numerical system?

By no link i mean there is no defined function for finding the next X number of Prime numbers which will consistently work.

But yeh i guess if you want Random does exist. I agree with that statement random does exist and that viewpoint.
Just i believe that random would not be defined as an unpredictable event. Or it could be defined as an event an entity could not predict.

For the PI answer yes you use a function to find PI but you do not use a function then to link the digits.

Anyway like the arguments for and against it is word based and not mathematically based so iI might as well shove the definition of random not what we conceive it to be.

Random: Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: "a random sample of 100 households".
Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.
So Random = Ignorance of the conditions. Or in mathematical terms ignorance of a fair system.
Or if you want take the 2nd meaning more explicitly as maybe take the copenhagen view of Quantum physics. Where the electron is in both places until you observe it. However by observing an electron particle you have to displace it. So heck yeh pointlessness lets go on and discuss particle physics?

I agree this topic is to vague

5. ManYouAreEvil

Joined:
Oct 12, 2007
Messages:
83
Resources:
0
Resources:
0
I find it hard to imagine a universe where events happened are unbound to laws that can explain them but are instead pure chance.

Whether it be a number generated "randomly" (as it truly isn't) by a computer or (like the example above of me) a random item from a 100 household chosen not consciously, I find it hard to imagine there is not something that makes just that choice or result the correct one, more than the others.

Neitherless to say, I can't back this up with any facts or anything - just saying. It's hard for me to imagine a universe where random exists.