How truly random is randomness?

[Zybanthia]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

coin toss is not random, cause everyone knows what the two outcomes will be. it HAS to be heads or tails, thus making it not random.

The argument is not whether or not it will be one or the other; the argument is which one it will be specifically. If you can't predict it, then there is an element of chance to it.

If a machine is set up to pick a number from 1 to 80, is it not random because we know it will be from 1 to 80? Because if so, the lottery is not "random" at all.

[Afrobean]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

Wouldn't the exact height and way it was dropped ultimately effect which side it would land on? And the exact ways you decide both of those could be pretty random.

Yes, but because both have equal likelihood, you not knowing how it will affect it means that predictability is a non-issue.

And I did say to drop it without looking at it. I didn't say put it a certain way, flick it off your thumb as is normal practice. Nothing.

What matter is that such control is possible

Not it is not. Even with a PEFECT coin, in a PERFECT testing situation, a reasonable setup could not give absolute results of control of the flip of the coin. It is impossible to control it to the level necessary. They could set up a system whereby they can control it a little, but their attempt to control it would only bring the probability from 50% to somewhere a little higher than that. And recall that science is only science when it is verifiable. If you say "I can control the flip of a coin", and you still get undesired flips, then that means that you're not truly controlling it completely.

Is it possible, given that you know everything about somebody, to predict with 100% accuracy what that somebody will act in a specific event?

No, because they could always do something intentionally out of character. Even knowing they MIGHT do something out of character to throw you off, there would be little you could do to guage before if the person would do the thing out of character or by conventional standards.

This sort of thought process plays into The Werewolf Game a lot, and even knowing a person very well, it can only give you hints as to how the person MAY behave under certain circumstances. They can always be aware what others will think of their behavior and adjust it accordingly to remain difficult to read.

knowing all the variables everything is predictable

This is technically true, but realistically impossible.

There is no way to know or control variables on the level that would be needed to predict or absolutely control something which is otherwise "random".

And if you guys want to get into predestination, you don't have to touch religion. I do believe that the string theory accommodates such a possibility in the existence of multiple copies of each dimension at different points in the upper dimension.

In other words, for every possibly branching point of action (i.e. any sort of event in time), there exists somewhere else in the 5th dimension a copy of "me" who has done it.

Check this out if you haven't already: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

I admit that it's only partially related, but it's definitely something everyone should see.

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

The thing is, we're operating outside of practical bounds right now, and so to say that predicting human action precisely is impossible is a bit difficult to substantiate. I claim that there is no clear answer to "if we know everything about somebody, can we predict how they would act in every situation," because such a situation is not realistic. However, of course, the answer to this question has profound implications in terms of free will and human behavior in general.

Every action is preceded by a number of thought processes that lead the person to perform said action. The question is really simplified then: to, given initial conditions and perfect knowledge about the subject, can we say with certainty that given that process A is undertaken, this will automatically lead to process B, or would the same set of initial conditions lead to occasional deviations from this set path? If we can say that even the smallest, most simplistic chain of thoughts can be predicted, then it immediately follows that even the most complicated ones can be, since these are just compositions of more simpler chains. In this context, it is definitely not immediately apparent that saying that human behavior on a larger scale can escape predictability.

[ballaw hare]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

If you can't predict it, then there is an element of chance to it.

There is no chance because (whatever it is) it's laws already define how it will be if in x situation. Not being able to predict just means not knowing. I can't predict what number a die will roll on (excluding guessing), but if you had all the factors of the die being rolled (air speed, roll speed, gravity, ect.) then you could predict what it would land on, and where it would land. It's not chance it's just failure of working out it's governing laws.

The lottery isn't random and isn't chance because the winning ticket will always be the winning ticket/number, it's just when a person finds out it's the winning ticket/number. Chance, in this case, is just ignorance of the true value.

Oh, and I'm surprised wave functions haven't come into the discussion yet.

[~kitty~]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

Random can never be within one self.

True randomness lies within another person...

The only thing that can not be determined for sure is another persons (human) attitude/personality/etc.

If we could, that would just mean just ANYTHING is predictable once you are omniscient of anything going on.

If we take a religious view... The Deity did not PLAN on humans committing sins, therefore it is a random act. The Deity is all knowing, but can not predict such things.

Why is that? Because the only random thing in this Universe... in all existence as we know it... are humans. That's when you exclude yourself.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: How truly random is randomness?

There is no chance because (whatever it is) it's laws already define how it will be if in x situation. Not being able to predict just means not knowing. I can't predict what number a die will roll on (excluding guessing), but if you had all the factors of the die being rolled (air speed, roll speed, gravity, ect.) then you could predict what it would land on, and where it would land. It's not chance it's just failure of working out it's governing laws.

The lottery isn't random and isn't chance because the winning ticket will always be the winning ticket/number, it's just when a person finds out it's the winning ticket/number. Chance, in this case, is just ignorance of the true value.

Oh, and I'm surprised wave functions haven't come into the discussion yet.

Its true, 'odds' are only based on the idea that everyone is on an equal level of whatever understanding the situation calls for. For example, supposing no one knows any variables and does not go through the mathematical processes of determining what side the coin WILL land on then the chances are 50% for one person. However, for someone who knew the correct power output of the thumb when it struck the coin weighing an x-value in x-location on the coin an x-direction with an x-trajectory and striking an x-hard surface going x-speed when the coin hits x-location on the coin as well as the surface while being on a current x-side of the coin proceeding to spin and strike the surface again x-times; the person could effectively have their odds of predicting what side will be face up at 100%
Chance is, what has been said, an ignorance or lack of calculation assuming all are on an equal level. Thus EVERYTHING could be predicted at 100% accuracy when knowing all the data as well as the calculations with the data. Is it realistic? No. Does the ability to make your odds higher than someone elses (even in the slightest degree) remain? Absolutely.