h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

so what we are asking is whether a value returned within a certain set oflimits can be classed as random since we know in advance that whatever value is returned will be within those limits.

I guess, again, it depends on the process. If the process is predictable for the specific value returned, then no. But if there is no way in advance for foretelling which value, between those limits, is to be returned then it is random?

Not sure I am happy with that.

and you have to consider how limiting those limits are on generating a random answer. if the limits are, say, from one to a thousand, then the numerical answer could be quite random. but if the limits are from one to three then it's a pretty safe bet that the random answer will be two.

Confuscious he say, "Random is merely the demand for money from a kidnapper with a cold."

gets large out and slaps pffffft round the head for that pun!

"but if the limits are from one to three"
Depends, are they inclusive or exclusive limits?
And of course whether the returned number is fractional or whole.

i like Confuscious!

the way i see it something with no free will cannot generate a truly random answer as it will have to work to set peramiters taking away the true essence off randomness

Ah, so the question of randomness you feel hinges on the identification of the universe into either deterministic or non-deterministic processes then?

I think perhaps the most basic level that we can go to, that of the spontaneous creation of particles from energy, would be the only true random. However, that includes a large portion of the result set being in the null category.
And even then, we don;t yet know whether this effect is random/spontaneous or governed by rules.

"peramiters" hmmm.

In language I don't think we use the word random in quite the same, precise way as science or maths does. Random choice very often isn't. We generally impose our own limitations and that Derren Brown chap who tricks people on the telly knows that when we think we are making random choices we ain't.

STOP: Don't scroll down... Name a vegetable










































Carrot

Spooky eh?
Or spooky enough for the 80% of us who choose carrot every time!

i'm a not that good at spelling!!! lol

ah so random is determined by the level of knowage of the observer

80% of us choose carrot every time, methinks not, else why do so many people where glasses? There, deductive logic that is. I think therefore I spam.

And cheers for the fishy there Icto, people have lobbed them at my family for generations. Most of my ancestors were penguins. I have evolved a little, but whenever I pass a river or a lake, I still have the irrational urge to lie down on my belly and slide in.

Hmm, interesting concept.
So if it is a random answer, truly random, and we know that it is random, then we can know that the random answer is random but cannot know what it actually is?

For reasons too tedious to explain, I said Parsnip. Closely followed by Eric.

How random is that?

RF

When they aren't thinking about asking loaded questions ask your friends this:

Pick a number from 1 to 4.
You can do it now.


































3 is the most common answer.

but by knowing that the answer is random do we not take some of the randomness away from it and instead turn it into something unexpected but not completely random.

as the act of observing something will change it it will also change the nature of the observer.

so by watching to see if a random answer is given we have changed ourselfs to expect the unexpected and given a little (if not much) of an understanding of the nature of random.

or i could just be talking crap

see post 10,721
I think that is talking about limits.

It is not about the value itself so much, since it could return 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in sequence. But providing there is no way to predict that outcome, then it is random? And by that I mean you would have to fully understand the mechanism to be able to prove that it is not predictable.
The problem with that, of course, is that you would be trying to prove a negative, which is generally thought to be a fairly fruitless job.

you could say that its not predictable to our knowage! anyway after thinking about it for a bit i have decided that nothing can be truly random due to the fact that for something to be truly random it has to be able to do anything in any time and space because otherwise there are peramiters (bloody big ones it has to be said) but there all the same

by the same logic this also means that no human or man made machine could ever be truly random as even the brain has set "walls" of knowage

*Checks thread head to see if he has drifted into the philosophy thread by mistake.*
It's my own fault for throwing in such a random word I guess.

lol dont worry i seem to think at right angles to everyone else!

Douglas Adams dealt with our preconceptions of "the random" in the Infinite Improbability Drive story. A bowl of petunias turns into a whale. How random is that? Not much. We can only perceive (or even imagine) things with a certain amount of order/predictability/familiarity about them. Staying in the form of a bowl of petunias, or a whale, for long enough to be *seen as one* requires a hell of a lot of order.

Thing is, life happens in the dirty crack between order and chaos. Too much order and everything falls into an immutable pattern and nothing new can occur: the cold death. Too much chaos and everthing vaporises before it can take root in reality: the hot death.

So from one point of view everything in the universe is predictable; from another point of view it is not. A subtle balance between both points of view is absolutely necessary to life.

ah the ying and yen theory

As issued forth in Stuart Kauffman, "At Home in the Universe"