• Lobby

  • the magic behind randomness

hey everyone,
so i was wondering and always wondered about randomness, and thought we could discuss it.
the thing started in school when were taught probabilities.
so my question is, what determines the color of the first ball, given a totally fair, physically balanced, picking method of balls.
is it hazard? what's the magic behind hazard?

another question, how does a computer choose a random value in range?
Superficial, human designed hazard? mathematical trick?

thanks for sharing your thoughts!
For the first part, i think random is what it is: just random. One can go way deep into anylizing how randomness is really determined; how the balls were emptied in the basket to get the random order of colors arrangement; what is the height of the person picking or his tendencies to look deep into thr basket or just pick from the top and plethora of other variables... So what is randomnes? Just too many variables that we simply havr no control on and thus no control on thr outcome.
On the computer side, if i am not mistaken it is a programmed equation that make use of the time; so if it is 6:50:15 you will get an outcome different then when it is 6:50:16
are you saying that complete fair physical conditions, to equalize probabilities is not reachable?
thats what i was trying to prove wrong for the past hour, with no luck.
any ideas?
Randomness in real life is also a simulation.
Every random choice or decision you make is actually the result of previous actions/decisions/choices that you or someone else did before.
The complexity in this notion is the difficulty in tracing every action or decision back to the beginning of mankind because each other of those decisions affected the one after it and so on. This is as close to pure randomness as you can get.

Note that randomness in human behavior is what simulates the idea of 'free will'.

In computer software, there are algorithms that use an initial seed. The initial seed is some number that won't occur again. For example, 20141020120430
It fascinates me how we haven't yet been able to produce a truly random number. Theoretically, computer-produced "random" numbers aren't random at all.

Imagine coding consciousness or human-like intelligence. It baffles the mind.
Nothing is actually "random" in life nor is it in programming, nothing EVER is.

Even when you think of any (so called) "Random" number, you're actually using some kind of seed to get it, maybe when you saw 4 ducks when you were little, or when you have counted the stairs, and possibly a color or a shape.
as the guys mentioned earlier randomness has a lot of variables which determines the outcome, it can't be traced or calculated in anyway because the moment you can predict a random outcome with accuracy under balanced physical conditions then the outcome wasn't truly random at all.

@tt400 every random situation has to be based on one or many variables in which the variables themselves are a product of yet another random variable so the difference between a TRUE random number and a random number is if it is possible to trace back the variables... in real life its very easy to create a True random number or situation since the world has lots of random seeds that every random situation is based upon.in the computers everything is based on Code so true random variables aren't available for a computer to base its random generation upon but yes we are able to produce a TRUE random number generated by a computer simply by making the computer use external true random variables from the real world like air pressure, temperature, cosmic radiation , decay of radioactive elements,noise produced by electrical circuits etc... so yea TRUE random numbers can be generated by a computer.
in everyday computers the random numbers which are based on clock, date, hashes or other measurable/calculable seeds are sufficient for any application because even those not true random numbers are impossible to guess, they are not called True because theoretically they are still traceable.

@Johnaudi on the small scale you are right, but if you think of the universe as a whole there is this a point in which the first event or lets call it the first variable that was responsible for everything today this first variable by itself was random it wasnt based on anything before it it just existed randomly. another thing worth mentioning is that all particles on the quantum scale are truly random humans till now cant understand its randomness its not even measurable or based on anything
DNA wroteyes we are able to produce a TRUE random number generated by a computer simply by making the computer use external true random variables from the real world like air pressure, temperature, cosmic radiation , decay of radioactive elements,noise produced by electrical circuits etc... so yea TRUE random numbers can be generated by a computer.
These aren't true random numbers either. Theoretically, it's possible to replicate these external variables/measurements and end up with the same "random" number (i.e. trace the random number).

EDIT: Perhaps truly random environmental measurements would come from the quantum level.
tt400 wroteThese aren't true random numbers either. Theoretically, it's possible to replicate these external variables/measurements and end up with the same "random" number (i.e. trace the random number).

EDIT: Perhaps truly random environmental measurements would come from the quantum level.
no you can't replicate them, how can you replicate a decaying U-235 atom? no one can ever know when an a single U-235 or any other atom will decay, how can you replicate noise from cosmic radiation? how can you replicate a crystal oscillator drift?
no those are true random variables
In response to NuclearVision's question, take it as a really complex algorithm, where it calculates a number (seed number, usually set as the time in seconds/milliseconds), and starts to change once you've gotten it.

In short, every time you create a random object in, let's say, C++, with a seed number of 20, it's going to return the same number every time you compile it, and this number will change upon getting the next random, yet no matter how many times you run the application, it's all going to be the same numbers received in the previous ones. Which is why programmers use a moving variable (time) as a seed.

In short, there's no magic at all in computers, even when your computer "randomly" crashes or freezes, there's always a cause behind of it.


Edit: Just realized hussam explained this as well, you may want to check his answer!
Hello guys, just got free to reply!
Yes it turned out to be an interesting topic.
Thanks everyone for sharing their opinion.
I have a few comments however.
For the computer thing, yeah its easy to replicate pseudo-random outputs.
But in real life? I was really trying hard to find a concrete example about a randomness in life with no luck, again.
For some reqson i believe randomness exist in real life. But i can't seem to find it.
I tried searching online, for instance wiki refers to randomness as the slight (physical(?)) difference between events, and pseudorandomness as an extreme difference.

So a question i stumbled upon is, what decides those intial (physical) conditions? Other primitive conditions? Or randomness itself?
DNA wrote
tt400 wroteThese aren't true random numbers either. Theoretically, it's possible to replicate these external variables/measurements and end up with the same "random" number (i.e. trace the random number).

EDIT: Perhaps truly random environmental measurements would come from the quantum level.
no you can't replicate them, how can you replicate a decaying U-235 atom? no one can ever know when an a single U-235 or any other atom will decay, how can you replicate noise from cosmic radiation? how can you replicate a crystal oscillator drift?
no those are true random variables
My point is not whether or not it is possible to actually or physically replicate any specific external variable. My point is that theoretically (keyword), if they were replicated, they would generate the same random number. They would not even have to be replicated, in fact. Again, theoretically, it might just happen that the variable repeats itself. In both cases, the sequence of calculations is repeated in an identical fashion (i.e. the same random number is generated).

I would say that they only way a number is randomly generated is if it is derived with the use of a variable that is only (and I mean only) exhibited once in the entirety of time, in the sense that it defies the actuality of physics and chemistry to repeat itself. And in this case, is the number really random at all? Or is just a very special number?
NuclearVision wrote But in real life? I was really trying hard to find a concrete example about a randomness in life with no luck, again.
For some reqson i believe randomness exist in real life. But i can't seem to find it.
I tried searching online, for instance wiki refers to randomness as the slight (physical(?)) difference between events, and pseudorandomness as an extreme difference.

So a question i stumbled upon is, what decides those intial (physical) conditions? Other primitive conditions? Or randomness itself?
These are good questions. I'm not sure. Theoretically, one could argue that all of reality and every single sequence and atom and all its intricate details are completely random and accidental. If the Big Bang was an accident, then perhaps it was random as well.

If you believe in a creator, perhaps things get much more complicated.
DNA wrote@Johnaudi on the small scale you are right, but if you think of the universe as a whole there is this a point in which the first event or lets call it the first variable that was responsible for everything today this first variable by itself was random it wasnt based on anything before it it just existed randomly. another thing worth mentioning is that all particles on the quantum scale are truly random humans till now cant understand its randomness its not even measurable or based on anything
I often wondered about that. What exactly was the first action that man did voluntarily or involuntarily that triggered everything after that?
If it was involuntary, who/what dictated it? (who/what decided on initial seed?)

If it was pure random, then was it the only real random decision in the history of mankind? Why didn't it need an initial seed?
NuclearVision wroteHello guys, just got free to reply!
Yes it turned out to be an interesting topic.
Thanks everyone for sharing their opinion.
I have a few comments however.
For the computer thing, yeah its easy to replicate pseudo-random outputs.
But in real life? I was really trying hard to find a concrete example about a randomness in life with no luck, again.
For some reqson i believe randomness exist in real life. But i can't seem to find it.
I tried searching online, for instance wiki refers to randomness as the slight (physical(?)) difference between events, and pseudorandomness as an extreme difference.

So a question i stumbled upon is, what decides those intial (physical) conditions? Other primitive conditions? Or randomness itself?
Randomness doesn't exist anywhere, never did, and never will.

I usually take John Conway's Game of Life as an example, no matter how many times you put the particles, as long as they're the in the same order, they're going to give you the same result infinitely.

It's just a chain of things creating our fake-random feeling, so many things that differs to each other, yet they are all linked in somewhat one that which is existence. (I do not believe in existence nor reality, yet let's not jump out of topic)

What I'm saying here is not subjective, rather my vast opinion, don't take me wrong guys. Life itself is the fruit of a mathematical procedure, where if you happen to recreate it at a smaller scale (even though you absolutely cannot) starting with the same root or seed, I'm going to see myself in the exact same thing I'm doing here, writing this post.

Since we're only humans, we cannot understand how randomness can ever work without implying psychological theories onto that (as I've given in my last example, you saw 4 ducks when you were little...).


Every cloud, drop of water, rock, cell, star and grain of sand you find on the beach was there after following a certain road, nothing "randomly" happened which has made it go in that certain position.

What is happening here is that our brain is simulating its randomness out of these consequences of events since it cannot think of what is happening in every atom, therefore, if we had our ability to use our brain to 100% of its capacity, you can realize that you can no longer come up with any random number without even remembering a certain procedure you've came through in the past.

I also want to pass by the fact, which may offend certain extremist or religious people, but scientifically speaking, your mind is physical. You're not free as you think you are, you're not thinking in any "random" way. All your memories are stored in your brain, it's like when you hit your head on something, you'd lose that certain memory, or possibly get Amnesia. This would be the first thing you can relate that everything you're doing now, seeing, or even thinking of, which I said before, following a certain path. (I wouldn't be surprised if in the future scientists would be able to ingrain memories into anyone's mind with simple surgery, as complex the connections in the human brain is). Concluding from the last paragraph, your memory has a physical reality, and everything with a physical reality, as I said before, did not "randomly" happen.

I'm just theorizing here, this is quite a good topic of discussion which I am glad to have someone willing to dissect its principles with me, and I hope that this post helped opening eyes on our current world.
DNA wrote
tt400 wroteThese aren't true random numbers either. Theoretically, it's possible to replicate these external variables/measurements and end up with the same "random" number (i.e. trace the random number).

EDIT: Perhaps truly random environmental measurements would come from the quantum level.
no you can't replicate them, how can you replicate a decaying U-235 atom? no one can ever know when an a single U-235 or any other atom will decay, how can you replicate noise from cosmic radiation? how can you replicate a crystal oscillator drift?
no those are true random variables
The ability to 'replicate them or not' is not the point. Assuming we could replicate the beginning of the universe and not intervene, it is just going to end up like now down to the atomic level.
tt400 wroteMy point is that theoretically (keyword), if they were replicated, they would generate the same random number. They would not even have to be replicated, in fact. Again, theoretically, it might just happen that the variable repeats itself. In both cases, the sequence of calculations is repeated in an identical fashion (i.e. the same random number is generated).
man the variables i provided you cant be repeated even if you had a chance to repeat it it won't give the same outcome, you are saying that because you don't know exactly how radioactive decay works if you really get deep into understanding such processes you will change your mind, you said before that truly random measurement come from the quantum level, and i did provide you with an example that is purely a quantum level process.

lets take the same U-235 atom as an example a single uranium atom has an even chances to decay in the upcoming 704million years, this same atom may even live 300billion years no one will know when it will decay, NOT because we aren't technologically advanced enough to measure it or calculate it , its because the process itself is UNCERTAIN!! it even defies the laws of physics for a very very short period of time in the process!!
and because of that when an atom decays its Purely random it isn't based on physics chemistry or any other laws, its a quantum process which is uncertain by nature!
tt400 wroteI would say that they only way a number is randomly generated is if it is derived with the use of a variable that is only (and I mean only) exhibited once in the entirety of time, in the sense that it defies the actuality of physics and chemistry to repeat itself
although i don't agree with you on this point in general, but the example of the radioactive decay is one example that meets your requirement, the atom is LOST is the process when an atom decays it is lost or more accurately changes to another atom and some emitted particles. so when you are generating random numbers from radioactive decay you really use each variable once! its really Pure randomness.

you say that it can be repeated if it was recorded well yes and so is any random event in our life if it was recorded, if you record a video of a random event and watch the video again does that mean the event wasn't random? if you enter a brain of a human and record everything that was happening at that moment when he picked the ball and then replay the data you will end up picking the same ball again and again does that mean when the event happened it wasn't random??? If lets say 2 atoms decayed with a time difference of 1/4332354 of a second well if you feed the computer this number again you will end up with the same result, but that doesn't mean the number wasn't random when this number(1/4332354) was created it was created from a process that cannot be calculated or understood not now not in a million years because as i said its uncertain in its nature. In regular computers even if the function that creates the random number is very very complex that no human can regenerate the process is understood very well and we know how we ended up with this number but in the case of decay the process is not certain by itself its like we have a function y=x+x the result will always be 2x, but in the quantum level the result will change every time because it defies the nature of physics. hope you got the point now
Hussam wroteThe ability to 'replicate them or not' is not the point. Assuming we could replicate the beginning of the universe and not intervene, it is just going to end up like now down to the atomic level.
in my opinion if you had a chance to rewind time to the beginning of the universe we will NOT end up same like now its impossible, you will end up will something very similar but not exactly the same as now, i am speculating now that if we had a chance to repeat it there is a possibility that we will end with nothing at all only pure energy!! upon the creation of matter the same equal number of anti-matter should exist at the same time, and basically annihilate each other to pure energy, somehow the matter we have now was favored although it only represents a small fraction of what existed after the big bang 1 to every 10 billion maybe insane right?!
DNA wrote
Hussam wroteThe ability to 'replicate them or not' is not the point. Assuming we could replicate the beginning of the universe and not intervene, it is just going to end up like now down to the atomic level.
in my opinion if you had a chance to rewind time to the beginning of the universe we will NOT end up same like now its impossible, you will end up will something very similar but not exactly the same as now, i am speculating now that if we had a chance to repeat it there is a possibility that we will end with nothing at all only pure energy!! upon the creation of matter the same equal number of anti-matter should exist at the same time, and basically annihilate each other to pure energy, somehow the matter we have now was favored although it only represents a small fraction of what existed after the big bang 1 to every 10 billion maybe insane right?!
Sure but whatever happened that led to that 1 in every 10 billion accident will just happen again unless something is manually tampered with, correct?
hussam wrote
DNA wrote
Hussam wroteThe ability to 'replicate them or not' is not the point. Assuming we could replicate the beginning of the universe and not intervene, it is just going to end up like now down to the atomic level.
in my opinion if you had a chance to rewind time to the beginning of the universe we will NOT end up same like now its impossible, you will end up will something very similar but not exactly the same as now, i am speculating now that if we had a chance to repeat it there is a possibility that we will end with nothing at all only pure energy!! upon the creation of matter the same equal number of anti-matter should exist at the same time, and basically annihilate each other to pure energy, somehow the matter we have now was favored although it only represents a small fraction of what existed after the big bang 1 to every 10 billion maybe insane right?!
Sure but whatever happened that led to that 1 in every 10 billion accident will just happen again unless something is manually tampered with, correct?
i didn't mean by 1 in 10billion as a chance , i meant that for every 1 particle of matter created there where 10billion lost due to collisions with its anti particle, although i may have exaggerated the number a bit am not certain of any true number, but lets say that the matter in the universe should be at least 20million times more if they weren't destroyed in the first billionth of the billionth of the second after the big bang.
as an answer to your question there are many many different things the happened in some way but could possibly happen in another if the process is repeated, lets take the creation of matter as an example we had more matter than antimatter in the big bang because actually some laws of physics were violated and without it we will end up with same amount of matter and anti matter, so if we repeat the bigbang maybe some other laws will be violated or maybe non will be violated at all.

take the example of uranium 235, if we have 2 atoms of uranium 235. they are 100% the same they are identical yet they decay at different moments sometimes millions even billion year apart. some aspects of the quantum world are not certain. and the first fractions of the second in the big bang had quantum scale activities it cant repeat itself in the exact same way.
Great ideas are emerging from this topic!
@hussam,DNA in my opinion, if we rewind to the beginning of time and tamper stuff, change the least concerned, it would not result in the same world we know now. In fact, a simple choice among many can change the world, a big world means more possibilities. How about a less developped world(beginning of time) a simple tampering would lead to different situations which havr their own choices, etc...
And this won't lead to the same world.
DNA lets say i am convinced, in fact i am!! Your example of real randomness in quantum level is convincing.
Could you answer the main question? Whats behind this randomness ? Who or what decided it?
Who decides when an atom decays? Who put the natural randomness of quantum aspects/ processes?