We humans absolutely suck at randomness. Your brain won't even let you pick a random number - even if you think you are. It's a number generated by way of electro-chemical mechanism and is not random.
In all the universe, as near as we can tell, very few things are true random. Even the conclusions of randomness associated with Bell's Theorem are still subject to dispute. It currently suggests that true random exists. I'm of the mind that Bell's Theorem may well fall and that we simply need to know more of the initial starting state.
The other sad reality is that very, very few people actually understand random. Numeracy is just not that high and, to be honest, I don't suppose people need to know. It gets rather confusing and, at some point becomes a philosophical matter and is inherently not falsifiable. You end up with questions such as, "If we could observe the universe from outside the universe, would it be true random or just chaotic?" And, that's not actually something that can be given a definitive answer at this time.
Randomness and infinity are two of my favorite subjects.
No. Infinity doesn't loop on itself. And, if it hits every type of number, it is no longer random.
It's also important to remember that infinity is just a concept. No infinities exist in nature. There is not infinite matter. There is not infinite energy. The universe is not infinitely large. Those are just REALLY fucking huge numbers - but not infinite. Infinite doesn't exist in reality. It's a construct of the human mind.
Frankly, it's not even a useful construct (usually). However, because it is a construct, we must answer it with mathematics. Mathematics is just a language we humans use to evaluate logic and to describe things. It's a philosophy known as logicism.
That question came to my mind, when I was picturing an "infinitely" small object traveling in an "infinitely" large circle, where the initial point is 0 and one direction is consider more negative than the other. To this object's point of view, there is a negative and a positive infinity. If there were an outsider object that is relatively larger than this "infinite" path belonging to a much smaller object, perhaps another level of abstraction of "infinity", and if this outsider object happened to travel along the path of that "infinitely" large circle, wouldn't it be possible for the much larger object to "pick up" that smaller object, which might lead to the initial point on this "infinitely" large circle?
:-) You are obsessed with the absolute state of randomness. Every source we use to generate a random number comes from some non-random mechanism. So this absolute state of randomness can never be achieved. Even if we do consider one random generator to be absolute, at this moment in time, I think it will eventually become non-random, when the mechanics of such process is understood. So I don't think we will ever be able to find true randomness. :-) For hardcore mathematicians, it may be excessively fascinating and mind-boggling. But, for practicality, the degree of randomness would depend on the application.
view the rest of the comments →
SyriansAreTerrorists ago
I still think it's cool that generating random numbers is so hard for computers.
They're built to follow strict rules so generating randomness makes them put up a fight.
TheBuddha ago
We humans absolutely suck at randomness. Your brain won't even let you pick a random number - even if you think you are. It's a number generated by way of electro-chemical mechanism and is not random.
In all the universe, as near as we can tell, very few things are true random. Even the conclusions of randomness associated with Bell's Theorem are still subject to dispute. It currently suggests that true random exists. I'm of the mind that Bell's Theorem may well fall and that we simply need to know more of the initial starting state.
The other sad reality is that very, very few people actually understand random. Numeracy is just not that high and, to be honest, I don't suppose people need to know. It gets rather confusing and, at some point becomes a philosophical matter and is inherently not falsifiable. You end up with questions such as, "If we could observe the universe from outside the universe, would it be true random or just chaotic?" And, that's not actually something that can be given a definitive answer at this time.
Randomness and infinity are two of my favorite subjects.
MadWorld ago
If an object perpetually travels across every random number from 0 to +infinity, will this object eventually come out from -infinity and back to 0?
TheBuddha ago
No. Infinity doesn't loop on itself. And, if it hits every type of number, it is no longer random.
It's also important to remember that infinity is just a concept. No infinities exist in nature. There is not infinite matter. There is not infinite energy. The universe is not infinitely large. Those are just REALLY fucking huge numbers - but not infinite. Infinite doesn't exist in reality. It's a construct of the human mind.
Frankly, it's not even a useful construct (usually). However, because it is a construct, we must answer it with mathematics. Mathematics is just a language we humans use to evaluate logic and to describe things. It's a philosophy known as logicism.
Does that answer your question?
MadWorld ago
That question came to my mind, when I was picturing an "infinitely" small object traveling in an "infinitely" large circle, where the initial point is 0 and one direction is consider more negative than the other. To this object's point of view, there is a negative and a positive infinity. If there were an outsider object that is relatively larger than this "infinite" path belonging to a much smaller object, perhaps another level of abstraction of "infinity", and if this outsider object happened to travel along the path of that "infinitely" large circle, wouldn't it be possible for the much larger object to "pick up" that smaller object, which might lead to the initial point on this "infinitely" large circle?
:-) You are obsessed with the absolute state of randomness. Every source we use to generate a random number comes from some non-random mechanism. So this absolute state of randomness can never be achieved. Even if we do consider one random generator to be absolute, at this moment in time, I think it will eventually become non-random, when the mechanics of such process is understood. So I don't think we will ever be able to find true randomness. :-) For hardcore mathematicians, it may be excessively fascinating and mind-boggling. But, for practicality, the degree of randomness would depend on the application.
MadWorld ago
Test comment1: 4983
MadWorld ago
Test comment2
MadWorld ago
Test comment3
MadWorld ago
Test comment4