How Truly Random is Random

[deisik]

Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs

Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random?

That's literally the opposite of what I said. This discussion is going in circles now

That was and had been in fact intended as a question because you didn't say explicitly whether you consider the existing irregularities (I intentionally avoid the word patterns here) in the distribution of galaxies across the Universe as random. Truth be told, you are quite vague and ambiguous on this, deliberately or otherwise. In simple terms, make yourself clear on the matter

That's all I ask (note, not claim, assert, or challenge)

There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)

Again, that doesn't fit the basic dictionary definition of random. By definition random doesn't have patterns. If you're seeing patterns then your randomization algorithm is not good (which technically is the case with almost any human-devised algorithm) or you're not actually seeing patterns

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

[1714802884]

1714802884

[1714802884]

1714802884

[1714802884]

1714802884

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

But even for gambling if the game is fair there should be a know distribution of events, its less and less random on longer period, the problem is having limited supply and not being able to play long enough to win the jackpot before you go bankrupt depending on the odds you take on a limited sequence.

[GSpgh]

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

[deisik]

I disagree. Uniform distribution doesn't violates the assumption of randomness, besides, it is still random, for example, if a certain program will distribute 0-9 integers with the same interval (uniform distribution) the numbers that will be distributed will still random, and it will not stop being random, in my opinion

The numbers on their own (i.e. their particular values) will remain random (i.e. the distribution of their values). But since you distribute them evenly across or along something, that distribution will not

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

[Ucy]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures.   I remember they were thought to develop randomly.
Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball,  the substance will sticks on the invisible ball and take its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random.

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures.   I remember they were thought to develop randomly.
Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball,  the substance sticks on the invisible ball and takes its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random.

What make fractal random is that small change in initial condition can lead to a completely different result after a certain number of iterations, so it make them hard to predict.

If you pour the substance many times it will still take the same shape, and the sequence of outcome is still predictible, even if there is no explanation for it, statstics dont require To understand the phenomena to find regularities.

Its interesting to see also why they came up with perlin noise algorithm to give computer generated graphics a more natural look, fractal can be used to generate trees, and adding some perlin noise can change a straight line adding slight twist to it, and can be used to generate 1000 trees that will all look slightly different but still using same core fractal pattern. Even in hair animation they probably use some kind of noise to make it more "realistic".

I Guess its same with Snow flakes that They all Have same core pattern but not two are identical, even if they form in very similar conditions.

Noise is often used to increase the complexity of computer algorithm in a cheap manner, and can end up with result that are statistically close To natural occurrence, even with simple repetitive/ iterative algorithm and very simple primitive patterns.

[Bitcoinislife09]

A computer code of random was so complex and I think there is it already consider random since there is no pattern,
like for example generating a random int number or making a for loop in the system to create a random number picker. You are just coding random.int and it was already coded in the language.
For me, it was already considered random but we don't know if the algorithms of the gambling sites were different because it code be altered by the programmer.

[MWesterweele]

I think this is a tricky question.I think that slot machine software can be manipulated and not be truly random however provably fair when is implemented like it should moves away this doubt from my head and I believe random is truly random.

Truly random I think is only where the casino house has its cut always provided like in poker when multiple random people are playing.

Ramdoness in a game is very unpredictable, there is a possibility and a probabilty im each set of number. As long as it has too huge, multiple chances are being created it is too hard to predict whether that  could be chosen or what. I believe that randomness and probability and statistics are both in line and  both use in dice and betting game.

[GSpgh]

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random.

dictionary.com: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"
Merriam-Webster: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern"
Cambridge Dictionary: "happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan or pattern"

[Zicadis]

Also, I think you may find that 'random' is defined differently by different people depending on their agenda, especially when tied in with affiliations etc. But random in principle should be as the term implies.

[deisik]

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random

I would say that depends

That depends on one's frame of reference. You disagree with me because we are looking at the same thing from different levels. On your level, random patterns are a misnomer (which I basically agree with) but I only use this term to better get across my point. What I mean by random patterns should probably be properly called irregularities on their own. But these irregularities could be considered a pattern of randomness at the next logical level (see theory of logical types to better understand my idea)

[IadixDev]

For me a random process is when it starts with very similar initial condition and end with very different result. In mathematics maybe non linear is a better definition. Linear system have for characteristic that they can be reversed, and you can deduce initial conditions from the end result. With non linear process they cant be reversed. But there can still be a pattern to it, even if the pattern is too complex to have a clear relation between initial condition and result.

As far as i know hash fonctions in cryptography have non linear components to make them non reversible using linear functions. Doesnt mean there is not a pattern to it.

[Betwrong]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

[deisik]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

[Betwrong]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll. They say, random processes "do not have memory", and thus it is impossible for past outcomes to affect future ones. So, while certain patterns are undoubtedly being formed, we can see them only post factum?

[deisik]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)

They say, random processes "do not have memory", and thus it is impossible for past outcomes to affect future ones. So, while certain patterns are undoubtedly being formed, we can see them only post factum?

"Post factum" here starts right after you see the first outcome (which your betting example proves). In other words, if you rolled high, bet on high next time (and vice versa). However, keep in mind that the house edge may still offset the tiny skew you are trying to exploit with this approach. Moreover, the outcomes in dice might in fact be pretty close to uniform after all (read, they are not truly random)

And it is also lovely how a seemingly simple gambling question quickly escalated into a metaphysical one

Strictly speaking, I started this thread specifically with "metaphysical" in mind. Gambling just happens to be the closest to it, apart from being the right place where to discuss these questions

If we look for absolute randomness, I am afraid there is none. Not in a toss of a coin or a roll of a dice, not even in the movements of the atoms in a single object, and not in the workings of the universe. Everything factored in, there is no result which we can consider an absolute random one

If we are really like ants from the post above, the problem goes far beyond that

[wozzek23]

My guess is all or most of the factors responsible for the distribution have to be known and understood else it's considered random distribution.
I believe nothing is really random. We humans are limited in our understanding of what creates the so called randomness, so we use the word random.
There are probably unknown reasons why the points at the right are distributed that way. You can easily understand why if you have sufficient understanding of how it's generated

The pattern has been applied on most casino distributed lucky picks, and I guess analysis couldn't be relied with it. You must understand that having random chances depends on how the computer generated a lucky choices, and human isn't capable to do it in his own. Indeed, limitations follows so we can't further instigate most probable move towards guessing the possible outcome.

Well, it's quite a interesting thread first of all and nice comparison and theory.

I think if you ask me randomness depends on the method being used, I mean if humans are randomly asked to pick numbers from 1 to 100 you will notice the the majority of the numbers will be between 30-80 because we tend to choose mid numbers while if you pick numbers generated by some script that is computerized then I believe it will be almost even for all the numbers.

[Betwrong]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

[IadixDev]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

Its the poisson distribution Who works this way, and its supposed to model well occurance of natural phenomena either its shooting star or number of cars passing in a street. As long as there is a meaningfull "mean" of occurrence its supposed to fit, for gambling game like dice or coins its supposed to fit, not sure if there is a Real démonstration of why it so.

There are algorithm to generate poisson distribution from uniform RNG.

https://wiki.q-researchsoftware.com/wiki/How_to_Generate_Random_Numbers:_Poisson_Distribution

Which correspond to ideal distribution you want in a fair gambling game.