It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Is there any Formula for Random?

page: 1
13
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:29 AM
I'm aware of pseudo random formulas, but that is not true random, that is sham created to form the illusion of random.

So I ask, is there a formula for true random?

"It's known that in a computer, random numbers are basically generated from a function which is fed a 'seed number', which would be something such as the time, or any other number. The function would then create a series of numbers which would be distributed over a certain range, enough to give the appearance of being random. In other words, the numbers generated were statistically spread out so that they would serve our purpose. In reality, though, they were the result of an equation, and if that same seed were supplied to the same function again, we'd get the exact same numbers generated. So that didn't really make it random, did it?"
Source

If there is no formula which produces true randomness, then is there anything within this universe which is random? If we restarted the Universe all over again, would the universe produce a different result?

If no different result is produced due to a restart, does that mean it was designed?
edit on 29-5-2011 by confreak because: added image

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:36 AM
There's no such thing as random.

If you drop some coins or dice on your table you will see a pattern and every time you drop them you will see a new pattern, but eventually you will see one of those patterns again.

I don't think it means that it was designed to work that way or everything is set up.
I believe its just that our minds see patterns and can only see or understand so many patterns.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Fishticon84 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:42 AM

Flipping a coin is not random, if exact conditions were set up on a coin toss, the same outcome would be produce every time. The reason why the same outcome is not produced is because the exact conditions are not met, for example the condition of air, power used to flip the coin, the surface the coin meets etc..

So if the exact conditions are set, then you don't get the perception of random results.

The point is, if there is no formula which can calculate true random, then there is no true random. That means the Universe is not random, which poses a question, what would happen if the Universe was to be restarted? Would it produce a different result? and if no different result is produced, does it mean it is designed?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:53 AM

Sorry, a coin was a bad example. What I meant was dropping a bunch of coins on a table and checking the scatter pattern.
Though I guess random would be better tested with dice in a dice tower.
A d20, a d6, and a d4 would be the best way to go because of their different shapes, but you would have to use the more expensive precision dice because regular cheap dice tend to land on a specific side more often because of density inconsistencies and corners being made different due to the polishing when they are made.

But yeah, you do bring up a really interesting point.
If we compare it to the way computer software works, then yes it would be the same every time its restarted, and that could only leave me to believe that it was designed that way.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:00 AM
Now if the universe works like computer software..
A better question to ask would be; Who or what creates the new variables?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:06 AM

Give an example of what you mean by new integers.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:17 AM

Well when something happens hear on Earth like a volcano eruption or an earthquake, and nothing is random, then how did it happen?

Is there an earth.volcano and a earth.earthquake that are connected to integers that know when to trigger on a timer? or is it a whole long set of booleans that leads to the trigger?

I would LOVE to see even simple set of code for just planet earth.
I'm sure its out there, I'm sure someone tried to do it.
Obviously not with the intention of building it lol, but it would be really interesting to read.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:27 AM

Set of conditions has to be met, before a volcano erupts, if those conditions are not met, a volcano will not erupt.

There are too many variables, some which we don't even know, that's why we can't predict things properly. If we knew all the variables, we would know exactly what would happen, take rain for example, we know most of the variables therefore can calculate where it is gonna rain and where it is not gonna rain.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:29 AM
I found a theory or division of physics called "Digital Physics".
I'm definetly gonna read more into this but here's a bit about it:

In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, the universe can be conceived as either the output of a computer program or as a vast, digital computation device (or, at least, mathematically isomorphic to such a device).
Digital physics is grounded in one or more of the following hypotheses; the hypothesis are listed in order of increasing starkness. The universe, or reality, is:
essentially informational (although not every informational ontology needs to be digital);
essentially computable ;
essentially digital;
itself a computer;
in essence the output of a simulated reality exercise.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:35 AM
Yeah so I guess why I cant find the "earth code".
Between IF and ELSE just for the volcano would be over 30 pages of code.
The entire code would probably be so long that it wouldn't even be able to display on a normal PC.
Kinda like that longest number site (sorry, I cant find it right now) that either takes way to long to load or crashes most computers web browsers.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:36 AM
Nothing in this world is random. All stochastic events are consequences. If randomness were to exist, it would be static and only exist as potential ( or potential for something to happen- at this this point you should be thinking about quantum mechanics).

The question you should be asking is whether choice is indicative of randomness.

My hypothesis is that in nature everything can be described mathematically...It is easy to show that a system that seems chaotic can be described mathematically by using difference equations(and drawing bifurcation diagram).

Is there a function for randomness? i don't think so. Consequences are a result of interactions or disturbances. Consequences can be modeled and predicted.

edit on 29-5-2011 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:40 AM
I specifically remember an article where numbers were decided using vacuum fluctuations. Is that random enough for you?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:40 AM
I specifically remember an article where numbers were decided using vacuum fluctuations. Is that random enough for you?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:48 AM

What type of answer did you expect from that question??

The answer is much more complex than you may think and something that is still yet to be explained by modern science...

Chaos theory

Wiki

Chaos theory is a field of study in applied mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather.[5] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

Intuition (knowledge)

Wiki

The term intuition is used to describe "thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection".[1] "The word 'intuition' comes from the Latin word 'intueri', which is often roughly translated as meaning 'to look inside'’ or 'to contemplate'."[2] Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot necessarily justify. For this reason, it has been the subject of study in psychology, as well as a topic of interest in the supernatural. The "right brain" is popularly associated with intuitive processes such as aesthetic abilities.[3][4][5] Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.[6] Intuition is also a common subject of New Age writings.[7]

Hope that points you in the right direction

These subjects and questions are things you need to understand and learn for yourself, in your own time. Once you see it... you understand it.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:50 AM

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:56 AM

Shot in the dark, I'm wondering since you are seeking an answer for "random" which does not fit the definition applied to it, might you be looking for something else instead? Might you be seeking "probability" as your starting point?

Hope you find what you are looking for so you may solve your dilemna(sp?).

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:11 AM

Does chaos theory try explain why some things are hard to predict, for example weather patterns etc? That's what I'm getting as I read Wikipedia.

In that sense chaos theory agrees that there is no such thing as random? Rather either we don't know all the variables, or we just don't have precise enough equipment to calculate the exact variables, hence its sensitive dependency. Am I reading this correctly?

At first when you posted the picture, I was wondering what that meant, as I read a long the picture made perfect sense, I then said, ughhh "duuuh"..

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:19 AM
the formula for random
int rand

if a = true then
x = x * r

label 1.text = x

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:38 AM

Quantum mechanics has both an element of randomness and an element which is not random. Study the double slit experiment

When an individual electron is fired at the double slit, the position it strikes the screen can vary significantly, so that variation is indeed caused by a degree of randomness.

However, once you examine the pattern formed by many individual electron impacts, you see that there is a pattern.

So because of randomness it's not possible to predict where a single electron will hit the screen. But because of non-randomness, it IS possible to predict the pattern that will be formed by lots of electrons hitting the screen.

Unlike the coin toss where it's possible to give the same rotation to the coin each time and force a specific outsome, the same is not possible with an individual electron going through the double slit and impacting a specific location on the screen. It will hit in different spots.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:51 AM

That's something very interesting for me to look at, thanks for the info and the simple explanation.

I'm trying to understand how it could be random and not random? Could other factors which we are yet not aware of explain the randomness? but since those factors having patterns it could explain the unrandomness when lots of electrons hit the screen?

I will look deeper in to this, although you put it in simple terms, I still quiet don't get it.

new topics

top topics

13