How truly random is randomness?

[somethingillremember]

Have you ever seen a friend do something strange, and thought, "Well that was random." ? Or someone mentions randomness and you instantly think of pie?

But think about it for a second. How can one be truly random? The two things I see as being possible are either that everything in the universe is predestined, or that humans and other living things can make choices that alter the course of things. If everything in the universe really is doomed to follow things out exactly a certain way, then nothing can really be random. Something can be seen as "random," that is, something that happens out of the ordinary and as far as we can see had no reason, but deep down, it was predestined that way.

Or, if humans really are able to make choices in life, than everything that we do would have to be some sort of decision, weather conscious or not. And can a decision be random? If you made a decision, your mind would have had to be referencing something somewhere in it's memory certain things required to make that decision. So even if a decision seems to be made randomly, the decision must be in reference to something that the person had done or seen before, because, at least as far as I have seen, the human mind cannot just get ideas out of nowhere.

What I'm trying to say is that things cannot be causeless (as in, caused by something, not done for a cause), and although causelessness is not necessarily part of everyone's definition of "random", I think to be truly random, something would have to be causeless. But the question is: can something truly be causeless? And if not, does this prove that everything is predestined?

[devonin]

"Within the bounds set by the nature of causality and the laws of science, you are free to act from choices therein in whichever manner pleases you"

[foilman8805]

I would say that the movement of air molecules is something that is causeless and free of 'predestination', unless you mean to extend the idea of randomness to inanimate objects without the ability to think.

[Zybanthia]

If something would have to be causeless to be random, then no, not even the movement of air molecules would be random because something causes them to move the way they move.

Everything has a cause and effect.

[x After Dawn x]

It depends on how you look at things...and in this case, it might have to do with time. If I'm not mistaken, right now, scientists generally agree upon the idea that time may act slower or faster on a person dependent on how close the person is to moving at the speed of light, but time cannot be reversed or go backwards. In this case, how do we know that everything is "predestined" and must happen? If time cannot be manipulated to go into the past, how can we "go back in time" to change or manipulate that which was predestined to prove this? And if this time change was predestined, then how were the events before this time change happening prior to the time travel without something from the future traveling back to alter it again?

It's ideas like that that sometimes make me wonder if time travel truly does exist, and if everything really is "predestined" to happen.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

I would say that the movement of air molecules is something that is causeless and free of 'predestination', unless you mean to extend the idea of randomness to inanimate objects without the ability to think.

The movement of air molecules is governed by the principles behind paths of least resistance, diffusion, and outside factors influencing pressure zones.

And just because nothing can be ABSOLUTELY random does not mean that it is predictable. Things in this world which appear to be random appear so because it is impossible to control or measure the "microscopic" factors that control them. For example, a person's brain chemistry and physiology will determine things that a person thinks of "randomly", but you can't look at a person's brain and know what they will think of.

Anyway, a random decision can be made. Assign values of choices to a seemingly random event, which statistically speaking is as random as anything can be. Say, a coin toss. It will either be heads or tails, and if you toss the coin without acting on the coin to affect the outcome (i.e., flipping it a certain way to try to affect it), your decision will have been made randomly.

And as for your opening comment, that would be called a non sequitur, literally meaning "it does not follow". It's not truly random, but because "it does not follow", the source seems to be without purpose.

[foilman8805]

I guess I was subconsciously thinking about the predictable side of things rather than discussing randomness. Well put, Afro.

Also, how do you toss a coin without acting on it to affect the outcome? I mean, you have to decide to flip it first, and then it is also your decision how hard and high you flip it too. One could argue that these will effect the outcome of the toss, no? Arguably a coin toss is very unpredictable, but it is not truly random, is it?

[Izzy]

I don't think anything human is technically "random". Everything you think is based on some kind of electrical impulse and personal experience controlled by your conscience.

But what i have wondered a few times is how do computers do "random".
I found out that programming languages use a method that is based off the system clock that is controlled by a tiny vibrating crystal on your motherboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator

So in my opinion, computers aren't random. Just very unlikely.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

I guess I was subconsciously thinking about the predictable side of things rather than discussing randomness. Well put, Afro.

Also, how do you toss a coin without acting on it to affect the outcome? I mean, you have to decide to flip it first, and then it is also your decision how hard and high you flip it too. One could argue that these will effect the outcome of the toss, no? Arguably a coin toss is very unpredictable, but it is not truly random, is it?

If you pick up a coin, do not look at it, hold it an indeterminate distance above the ground, then drop it, did you act on it to affect the outcome? You effected a change in the coin's state, but you did not affect the resulted outcome in a controlled manner.

Does that make sense? You cause the effect, but you did not affect the outcome to skew it away from being a clean 1/2 chance.

[Izzy]

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.

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If you pick up a coin, do not look at it, hold it an indeterminate distance above the ground, then drop it, did you act on it to affect the outcome? You effected a change in the coin's state, but you did not affect the resulted outcome in a controlled manner.

Does that make sense? You cause the effect, but you did not affect the outcome to skew it away from being a clean 1/2 chance.

But then the way you flick it and pick it up determines the outcome of what side it will land on, as well as air resistance and floor material. It would be very complicated to calculate how it would land, and for all intensive purposes can be considered random, but the side it landed on was not actually random. Even looking at it from the point of view that humans have the ability to choose things (which I partially believe in - for something like coin tossing, it would be mostly muscle memory, which is probably more predestination than decision - speaking of which, can something be some of both predestination and decision?), and would decide subconsciously how hard they wanted to toss the coin, the result would still be from a decision, bringing us back to the question of weather a descision itself can be complately random.

[dore]

It would affect which side it would land on but not in any predictable manner. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could be consistent at flipping the coin predictably but even that would have to occur under controlled circumstances (such as wind or landing surface). If you flip it with a random (using the term loosely) height of launch, force of flip, speed of rotation, etc. and base a decision off of it then you can safely consider the decision to be based off of randomness because you would not have consciously caused the outcome of the flip. (EDIT sorta ninja'd)

Many things we call random aren't really because they're based on some sort of subconscious predisposition that would most likely be predictable when looked at from an objective point of view, such as someone acting on impulse in an unexpected way.

[QED Stepfiles]

As for the coin flip example, for the sake of discussion it's not very relevant to say that it's essentially a random process in that we aren't really trying to control fo the outcome. What matter is that such control is possible (albeit impractical), since this system is essentially completely determined by the initial conditions. Given a set of numbers that describe precisely how the coin was thrown and in what conditions, it is entirely possible to predict accurately what side the coin will land on. Nobody would ever be crazy enough to do such a thing, but this is certainly plausible.

On the other hand, if you look at everything quantum mechanically, we can never be sure of a particle's position, but can only give a description of the probability of finding that particle at a specific location (obtained by squaring the solution to Schrodinger's Equation). So, in this sense, in a way you can never predict events with certainty - there is always a measure of chance involved.

Of course, whether or not such scientific logic generalizes neatly into the realm of human behavior is a difficult question to answer. Is it possible, given that you know everything about somebody, to predict with 100% accuracy what that somebody will act in a specific event?

EDIT: On second thought, quantum mechanics, although relevant in a discussion on randomness in a scientific sense, isn't really relevant at all in a discussion on human behavior... give me a break, it's 4:20AM right now <.< But yes, the question remains as to what extent we can predict human behavior.

[who_cares973]

knowing all the variables everything is predictable

[Bolth mannn]

If I said "pie" right now, pretty much everyone would expect that kind of behaviour when people think of random. things like Pie, leaf, rock, is not random because theyre a common cause of being random...i guarantee noone expected me to say horn-headed walrus.

in relation to everything being predistined, i dont want to start a religious debate, but i am a christian, and i believe that everything happens for a reason. im not saying everythin that everyone does leads up to that same conclusion. but everything that happened, was supposed to happen.

EDIT: 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.

[Zybanthia]

Originally Posted by Bolth mannn

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]

Originally Posted by Izzy

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.

Originally Posted by who_cares973

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Zybanthia

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~]

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.