It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


Is there any Formula for Random?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by confreak

reply to post by LiveEquation

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).

Wow! This is an interesting thread- much of the technical aspects are over my head however;

It would seem our perception of what randomness is may play a role here, and

What we think of as random could merely be results of variables at work within the properties of the 'event'.

I would also fully expect some theories would apply for some events and for others a different theory. THAT to me seems the constant = always variable.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:02 AM
Great thread!
I believe random exists when the driver of an event has no control over the variables, at least by definition. Certainly, a sophisticated program may be able to explain all actions or consequences that result from a particular action, and even future actions/consequences, but this is outside of the definition of random. Otherwise, random could not exist as a definition of any phenomena, could it?
If I reach my hand in a jar full of raffle tickets, and swirl my hand around, and pick one when the next dog barks, that is random. I have no idea which ticket I will get, but a program could explain WHY I got the one I got.
Different thing.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Stewie

Yes you are right, and that's why some people argue that random truly doesn't exists, only pseudo random exists, which is just an illusion.

The word random was created because once upon a time we actually did believe random existed because certain things looked random due to our ignorance, hence we didn't know most of the variables to help us understand how the results other than random could be produced.

Now we have coin flipping machines:

"Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way.

The randomness in a coin toss, it appears, is introduced by sloppy humans. Each human-generated flip has a different height and speed, and is caught at a different angle, giving different outcomes."


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:41 AM
i think first and foremost, there are two things to keep in mind;

Are we, as humans, capable of telling when something is or is not random?

If we can, then how is "random" detected if true randomness is not dependent on repeating or non-repeating patterns.

While it is unlikely, in one "random" iteration, we could absolutely get "1,2,3,4,5,etc." So, in this, the result itself can not be necessarily the indicator of whether something is "random" or not. So, we must look at the process itself (as said in the OP). If the process that ends in that result follows "rules" (such as what we explore with physics), then it is likely not "random." So, if it is done by a "process," then it is only random insofar as the variables themselves. If it is not done by "process," well, we are going to waste a good amount of time figuring that out
That is, if we are capable of actually understanding such concepts in the first place.

The human mind is fantastic at seeing patterns where there are none (apophenia), and conversely (but rarely mentioned), not seeing patterns where they are present (label unknown). i am not sure the human system is one that is capable of speaking on terms of things like true randomness. Doesnt mean we wont explore it

edit: as a note on coin flipping, im sure it was mentioned in one of the articles, but on the american penny, one side (heads, i think) contains marginally more metal, skewing the results out of the normally perceived 50/50 chance. The coin flipping will also be subject explicitly to the rules of physics, the only thing that changes is the variables of the equation.
edit on 29-5-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:42 AM
I dont think anything is completely random. To start looking at randomness, you would need to start by making a diagram of all possible outcomes for a given object or situation (infinite). Many of them would have a practicle probability of zero. The more likely scenarios will tend to happen and they happen due to certain conditions being met.

A little off topic, but can anyone find any links to file size compression through chaos theory?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by confreak

So, there you have a definition. The inability to reproduce a desired result, results in a random result.
Phew, that was tough.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:18 PM
To understand randomness...imagine this simple scenario...

Imagine a bounded system with one particle in motion and nothing else (no forces). Is there a potential for anything else to happen to the velocity of this particle? Unless there are forces on this particle, the particle's motion does not change.

Now add another particle into this system with its own velocity. Is there a probability that these particles will interact?

Assuming you are in full control of the system, you can choose whether they would interact or not, From your point of view, there is no randomness but only certainty. Because the other particle in the system does not know the velocity you will choose for the second particle, as far as it is concerned, randomness exists.

So ultimately, randomness is inversely proportional to how much mathematical knowledge you have about variability in a system. What you cannot explain is random because you cannot account for it mathematically.

If i dropped my phone right now, it will fall to the floor. nothing random about that.

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

edit on 29-5-2011 by LiveEquation because: phone

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:46 PM
Classic randomness like dice throwing is theoretically deterministic. Quantum randomness is according to some sources more mathematically "purely random".

All kinds of different opinions about that, some theories even suggest quantum randomness can be influenced by "free will" so maybe we don't understand what quantum randomness really is.

I think this debate could go much deeper, beyond simple mathematical probability into the realms of what reality really is, our perception of it, and possibly even control.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:17 PM
Heisenberg gave us the uncertainty principle. The location and velocity of a particle can't both be known to a certainty. That is proven at the subatomic level, and macroscopic events, like a toss of the dice, are just combinations of many subatomic events. The greater the number of events, the greater the number of knowable digits of accuracy. However, there is always going to be a finite amount of uncertainty in any event.

Chaos theory tells us that uncertainty has a way of snowballing with the passage of time. You can compute an outcome based on a googol decimal places and get one result; if you change the last digit, you may get a radically different result. It's called the butterfly effect because the change of that last digit may be the equivalent of one flap of a butterfly's wing, and it may change the weather forecast, a week later, from from no wind to a hurricane.

Einstein said, "God does not throw dice." Einstein was wrong! If you look far enough into the future, everything is random.

In my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, every subatomic particle is a strange attractor in a chaotic sea of shear waves (regular energy) and pressure waves (dark energy). Each type of particle has a finite probability of undergoing random change at any time, due to instability of the attractor. So randomness is more fundamental than certainty. God doesn't throw dice; God is dice!

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by confreak
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.
Don't feel bad if you don't fully understand it. I took a post graduate level course in it so I know more than the average person but it's not easy to understand.

Richard Feynman was a leading scientist studying quantum mechanics and he said:"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" which I've heard alternately expressed as: "anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't understand quantum mechanics"

Regarding how it can be random and not random, as others have pointed out, mechanical things like a coin toss or roll of the dice aren't completely random because if the motions and other factors can be precisely controlled, so can the outcomes. But set that aside for a moment and assume there's a way to make a roll of a die random.

You won't be able to predict the outcome of any single roll of the die. It could be a 1,2 3, 4, 5 or 6 and you have no idea what it will be.

But if you roll the die 600 times, you can accurately predict that you'll get something close to 100 of each of those outcomes. And if you roll the die 6000 times you can predict you'll get something close to 1000 of each of those outcomes. This is sort of like quantum mechanics, you can't predict a single outcome, but you can predict the statistics of a series of outcomes.

Einstein didn't like this and said he didn't think God plays dice, but he also said he was aware his younger peers thought this thinking was the result of senility, because from all appearances, it appears the quantum world works this way.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:51 PM
Random is not governed by math. Math has order, random is chaos. I am sure many others in this thread agree. Look elsewhere, would be my advice.

Look at Brownian movements in physics. Particles suspended in gas or fluids tend to have random motions. This is something that happens on a very small scale. I wonder if randomness can be extracted from that phenomenon, among others.

It's like most scholars say: If the system you are looking at have a high-degree of complexity, then run a simulation.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by nidstav
Random is not governed by math. Math has order, random is chaos...

Let's say you have a random/chaotic particle...

what are the assumptions of this random particle?

1. A random particle can alter its own state without cause or effect.
1.1 A random particle with zero forces acting on it should still exhibit randomness in empty space.
1.2 With zero forces acting on it, a random particle can change its speed and direction.
1.3 At zero Kelvin, a random particle can change its own heat energy to kinetic energy

Are these things possible?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by Havick007

Your right. Ive found that the biggest questions ive had in life had to be worked out in my head in my own way. No one can explain what life is to you.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:29 PM
Things cannot be random if you view the universe as a great big machine of cause and affect. The reality of the universe has far more depth to it than that.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:21 PM
The answer for the formula for random is phi.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by againuntodust

Either that or 42.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
Chaos theory. That is the study of random events and what led up to them and determining if it is predictable.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:37 PM
Everything is random. Your tunnel vision blocks you.
Just because something seems to be the isnt.
The particles behind everything are completely random, until
you view them.

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by confreak

Weather patterns can be predicted for the most part, of course there are always fluctuations that are unpredictable....

Look at all of the weather and geo patterns that have happened this year (2011)

Australian Floods and Cyclone Yasi
Severe tornado season in the US
+ many more worldwide

Now depending on your beliefs and in particular conspiracy theories some will say it was predictable or meteorology will blame it La Niña as opposed to the last approx 10 years of El Niño-Southern Oscillation

When it comes to random, it depends what context you use it in.

People can be very predictable and ven their influence on others can be predictable to a certain extent. Stock market anylists can predict certain movements in stock and company profiles but the majority of predictions comes down to understanding human when people get sppoked they sell and it becomes a rolling effect, the more scared investors that begin to sell the more others follow. The same goes for buying confidence.

Next time you look at a particular companies stock and when it rises and falls - also look at the bar graphs that show buy/sell volumes.

Random in nature is very different to random in human behaviour although i do believe with enough knowledge and intuition they can be projected over short to medium terms of time. This is different to prophecy although if you think about it, if someone had enough information and research they could create true prophecy.

It is a step by step process, from the smallest part of the puzzle right through to the largest part.

I'll give a rough example, if you take a group of ten people and put them in a room, could you determine the outcome of any type of agreements, arguements, fights or allies.... it is possible if you know enough about each of the ten people before you put them in the room.

You would know who the leaders will try to be and who the followers would be, what opinions and what sides people would take and so on...... with enough information before you begin, you could predict very likely outcomes.

The same goes for weather and even volcanic and astro events. With enough detailed information you could acuratley preict almost anything but the research would have to be very instrinsic and VERY thorough!


Just to add, i included intuition into my first reply because i do beleieve it plays an important part in predictability. Some people claim it is supernatural but i think it just the opposite... i think it is completly natural and a powerful part of the human brain that is still developing.

Scientists say that we only contiously use 13-15% of our brain but we neglect to reflect on the sub-contious parts our brain that have more power than super computers.

As i said with enough information and data input our brains along with computers are capable of great things and great foresight.... just a matter of learning how to use it.

Next time you have a ''brain-fart'' or you have some word or thing that is on the ''tip of your tongue'' just remember that it is in there, it is just a matter of using it and remembering. The same goes for calculating future risks, opportunities and events.

Brain De-frag anyone??

edit on 30-5-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by R3KR

Quantum Mechanics??

Well it depends how you consider the other particles.... If you view yourself as seperate from ''the whole'' then of course you will always be playing catch up and lagging behind.

But what if you thought of yourself as part of the whole?

If your interested in that subject matter you should watch this docu-movie;

Interviews with scientists and authors, animated bits, and a storyline involving a deaf photographer are used in this docudrama to illustrate the link between quantum mechanics, neurobiology, human consciousness and day-to-day reality.

It changed my life!

edit on 30-5-2011 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in