|
Author
|
Topic: Predictable Randomness
|
marco
Member
Member # 883
|
posted 20. August 2003 18:31
What is the true nature of randomness ?
is it "truly random" or is "true randomness" deterministic after all ?
My experiments seem to point into the direction that a "truly random system" is still highly deterministic. In order to predict the outcome of certain initial conditions we should understand all variables that come into play.
But we can't. Therefore it cannot be captured in a formula. Analyzing past results gives no accurate predictions either, because we don't really understand what we are looking at. However, if I use randomness itself and force it as much as possible in the same state as the original conditions were in real life (I try this on lotto results)I get very, very simmilar results with real live drawings. This could not be true if randomness was truly random.
And no, it is not a flaw in the lotto machine.
I found exactly the same results to be true for different lotteries in many countries.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 20. August 2003 18:45
Perhaps you could expand upon your methodology with lotto analysis.
In particular, what do you take to be the "original conditions"? And how do you quantify similarity to real drawings? Where does randomness enter your experimental design?
IP: Logged
|
|
marco
Member
Member # 883
|
posted 20. August 2003 19:00
At this point I can not talk about the principles I use to synchronyze random numbers in a computer in order to match the real original conditions.
This information would be too delicate to distribute on the net. Right?
I just want people to start thinking differently about randomness. Mainly because the results of my experiments don't stroke with the common assumption that each member of the group has an equal chance of appearing in the next draw.
This simply isn't correct.
The most logical explanation I can give at this point is that there is a force at work that may be simmilar to magnetism (attraction and repell between certain numbers under certain conditions)
IP: Logged
|
|
marco
Member
Member # 883
|
posted 20. August 2003 20:04
If what I am saying is correct...
Lotto numbers aren't numbers, they are balls with numbers painted on. The numbers I use in the computer aren't lotto balls. And yet, they give the same results. Somehow there must be a link between the physical item and the number.
Suppose.
A car with number plate BRF 158 passes in my street. The car isn't a number (just like the lotto balls)It only has a number painted on it. If it is possible to predict the number plate of the next car to pass in my street (RFT 176), what is the consequence of that ?
We would think that the cause would be "the owner of RFT 176 stepping in his car, driving in the direction of my street". The effect would be that "this car passes in my street".
But if this is predictable from a previous number plate, then couldn't we join the cause and effect together and determine another cause?
cause = car with plate BRF 158 passes by
effect = owner of plate RFT 176 steps into his car and starts driving in the direction of my street and passes by.
IP: Logged
|
|
marco
Member
Member # 883
|
posted 20. August 2003 20:12
This leaves us with the question.
What is the true underlying reason for something to happen?
Maybe the reason = the result
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 21. August 2003 00:50
There are many processes which may be assumed to be random which actually are not (and the reasons why they are not can be understood upon further analysis). For example, car licence plates aren't uniformly drawn from the space of all 6-character strings consisting of 3 letters followed by 3 digits (or whatever the scheme for the state/province/country is), and location where the car was bought can impact what is on the plate.
But more importantly, I'd suspect that you've not sufficiently carefully analyzed how often combinations would arise by chance. It's surprisingly easy to think you have found patterns where none exist, because of what intuitively seem like inconsequential mathematical errors. (E.g. not appreciating the difference between N! and N-choose-K.)
The bottom line is that I'm going to have to do what I always do when someone says, "Do you think it could be that [remarkable-claim-X, with no concrete supporting evidence]?" Since it is easier to make remarkable claims than to discover remarkable facts, my answer is always, "No, probably/almost certainly not."
Likewise here. I've seen no evidence that randomness isn't "truly random", but plenty of instances of misestimation of what a random process should look like.
IP: Logged
|
|
marco
Member
Member # 883
|
posted 21. August 2003 02:58
my system delivers about 60% more accurate predictions in lotto than just guessing. Stating that lotto isn't random is a bit cheap. If it were not, then why can't it be predicted yet be thousands of clever people?
I do agree that it is not infinete. It has clearly defined finite boundaries. But isn't a number string concidered to be random if we are unable to determine the next value to add to the string? Math has no answers for lotto at the moment, so it may be called random.
And if patterns arise from "lucky coincidences", thats valuable too. Because we may have wrong thoughts about what lucky coincidences truly are.
to me, a consistent 60% difference means something that can not be ignored. I believe it can not be decimated to errorous processes that by accident lead to more accurate results ?!?
"randomness" is found in the very heart of nature, (quantum mechanics). Do you really accept that the foundations of such an organised world are based on "lucky coincidences".
If randomness were truly random, the universe should have end up in a dark soup of nothing.
I find the belief of order in randomness far more acceptable than the belief in a universe build on complete chaos.
ps:
If you think that number plates passing by aren't random enough for you, I suggest you go standing in your street and try to guess them. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm pretty sure that guessing will deliver not much more than 0% accuracy.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic