Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Anomaly in Randomness

Any complex real life simulator must use Quantum principle based random generator to correctly predict the future.

I'm not sure what a "complex real life simulator" is . A model is a description, often in mathematical terns, of what something is doing (that can also imbed how it does it). A simulation is an instantiation of a model, as in a program.

Simulations are always trying represent a "referrent," which is often what we perceive as reality, but can be something else - think of a video game that instantiates a model of a world with some make-believe physics.

Given that a simulation exists, one usually wants to understand the degree to which it reflects the thing that it is trying to model - it's fidelity, or resolution. Validation is the practice of documenting the degree to which a simulation produces results that agree with reality (or, the referrent).

Verification is the practice of documenting the extent to which good software practices were used, that the specification is met, that the algorithms and data have traceability.

Accreditation occurs when the authority reviews the V&V documentation and then uses her own judgement (and perhaps using subject matter experts) makes the decision that the simulation is fit for a particular use.

I'm not making this stuff up. You can find scads of information on the web about it. Not all of the definitions agree perfectly, but most are pretty similar to what I just gave you.

For reference: have you ever created a simulation?

For reference: have you ever created a simulation?
REP: Yes I have but it was a simple simulation.
======================================
I'm not sure what a "complex real life simulator" is .
REP:
Who defines the properties of a Random number .. Maths or Physics.
Obviously Physics .. the Mathematical Probablity reflects the Physical Structure and not vice versa.The underlying randomness has a nonlinear component in it. Therefor a complex real life simulator must have that part.
There are various levels of Purity of Randomness... From Deterministic to completely non-Deterministic the randomness varies in the degree of Mathematical Purity(Pure Random numbers have natural Statistical Properties as I had discussed).
===================================
A model is a description, often in mathematical terns, of what something is doing (that can also imbed how it does it).
A simulation is an instantiation of a model, as in a program.
Simulations are always trying represent a "referrent," which is often what we perceive as reality, but can be something else - think of a video game that instantiates a model of a world with some make-believe physics.
REP: I am not talking about a Video Game(Where the simulation is of no use other than getting entertained) .. I am talking about the real Game of Weather Prediction for next 1000 years.It must reflect the reality as closely as possible. The randomess inherent in the Reality must also be simulated within the Program.To every complex Real variable(e.g Temperature) there must be a
linear and non-linear equation describing its true distribution for a large period of time..
==========================================
Given that a simulation exists, one usually wants to understand the degree to which it reflects the thing that it is trying to model - it's fidelity, or resolution. Validation is the practice of documenting the degree to which a simulation produces results that agree with reality (or, the referrent).
REP: We can improve the accuracy if we use the Quantum Approach to Randomess...
=======================================

I'm not necessarily talking about a video game, per se. I used that as a trivial example. In some sense, many of the real simulation tools in use today are complex video games. It's not clear that using true random numbers is necessary or desirable.

The probability of rolling an even number on a standard dice is 0.5. Yet, since it is practically impossible to predict what you'd get on any of the rolls the outcome of the roll is random. If I were to get infinite even numbers, the same rules would apply, the outcome would still be random.

"If I were to get infinite even numbers, the same rules would apply, the outcome would still be random."

I agree with the first and second sentences, but I would think it should be obvious. The third sentence is vague. In any case, I don't follow the connection to the rest of the thread.

General comment, specifically not directed at you, Rob...
I think there is a problem in trying to apply philosophical arguments to the realm of science. a) One can say all sorts of things that on the surface seem perfectly reasonable or even obvious.
b) One can even sputter nonsense continually that sounds very impressive and which one actually believes to be true.
c) One can even delude one's self into believe that one's nonsense is genius.

But until one can phrase one's theories with sufficient specificity that one can conceive and carry out an actual experiment to disprove the idea - if it is wrong - then one isn't doing science.

That's not to say that scientists can't speculate. There seems to be a period in the progression of most scientific ideas when they are more properly termed a proto-science (to borrow a term from E. O. Wilson).

This is when scientists toss out lots of different ideas - almost like a protracted brain-storming session. What are we trying to study? What core questions are we trying to answer? What is the right terminology to use? What do we really mean when we say X? How do we distinguish our goals from those of existing sciences? What methodologies are likely to produce the answers we can use?

It's not that this doesn't happen continually. Surely this kinda of docimasy can extend well into the lifetime of a mature science. But there is a time in the beginning, an exciting, frantic time when people are just figuring out the framework they're going to use for investigation.

Nothing is set in stone. Goals can be amended. Terminology can change meaning as we come to understand things better.

But, see, here's the thing. I kinda understand how my car works. In general terms, not specific. I can't repair my car. I'm pretty sure I could figure it out, but I have no more interest in that than I do in painting my house. I'd rather pay someone - a lot - than do it myself. I'm a generalist in my field, but relative to society, I'm very highly specialized. (Oh, I can do manual labor, but I refuse now.)

Suppose I wanted to go to a forum where mechanics meet. Some are amateurs, some are professionals.
But I feel confident that because I know the PV diagram of an Otto cycle, that I can meet with these fellows and definitively and authoritatively refute their opinions on car repair. My guess is, if I did this, I would either be ignored or laughed out - and rightly so. I'm really extrapolating far beyond anything I know about. How much worse would it be if instead of knowing about the Otto cycle, suppose the sum of my experience consisted of having once watched a video of a person driving a car.

There are people in the world who haven't done the least bit of real homework on a subject and then feel qualified to refute every bit of work that's ever been done on it.

I'm really at a loss for why this happens.

TheFallibleFriend,
What I was basically trying to say was that if a set of results were random, it would be impossible to have an anomaly in them. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think an anomaly in randomness is a set of numbers with a logical pattern to them. If this were the case and a pattern appeared in a set of random results it would not be an anomaly, it would be a coincidence.

You are right, I have not done the least bit of homework on the subject of randomness; but this is only because I had no idea one could do research on randomness. I had assumed that this was general knowledge. Could you please recommend something?

Thank you.

I thought was explicity saying that I was not referring to you about my comments on homework.
I don't have a specific book in mind, but you might want to browse the tables of contents from a few books on simulation algorithms.

I'm not sure how to distinguish between random results and a coincidence. Al posted in one of these threads a list of seemingly unlikely patterns in the digits of pi. I'm reminded of a Fermi's statement that "A miracle is anything with a probability of less than 10%."

So maybe if we set a monkey at a typewriter and check in every googol years, we find he has not produced the collected works of William Shakespeare. Maybe he has only produced a single Sonnett. Is it any less curious?

What I think is that language is necessarily vague. There's a lot of things that we communicate (even to ourselves) of which we aren't necessarily aware. It seems likely (certain) to me that we have a lot of assumptions about the implications of randomness, vis a vis expected values that might not be warranted if we just calculated.

The probability of rolling an even number on a standard dice is 0.5. Yet, since it is practically impossible to predict what you'd get on any of the rolls the outcome of the roll is random. If I were to get infinite even numbers, the same rules would apply, the outcome would still be random.
REP: That was an Euclidean remark.When we talk about the Experiment taking place in TIME the intuitive reasoning has its limitation.... There is a samll chance that you may get 2000 consecutive Heads it you perform the Head Tail expermiment sufficient number of times.Interestingly the distrbtuion of these lumps of coincidences follow statistical laws... and thus give the verifier a chance to distinguish bewtween what is RANDOM and what is NOT RANDOM.
Assuming the verification follow some known rules it is easy to say that the experiment can again be simulated creating a false impression of randomness.Becuase the distribution itself is predictive as it is executed by a predictive algorithm.... Hope that is clear...
In short the FUTURE determined by a RANDOM INCIDENT IN A DETERMINISTIC COMPUTING SPACE can be recrearted... thus making the whole excercise a COMPLEX SIMULATION....This is not the case with Qunatum Probability ....IN PRINCIPLE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF RECREATING THE SERIES USING ANY MEANS OR ANY EXPERMINETAL SETUP...
Hope I am clear.

you should play roulette

I have played it dear friend :
Honestly there are more laws related to Probability which needs to be framed and discovered...
Mixing of Probablity with Time creates a interesting Stuff.Something as cool as Einstein Equation .. we know this equation for Quantum Scale....Some have discovered it for Storms .....
I wonder when will Maths discover it ???!!!!
This is an Irony ... Maths created Probability and now Relaity is telling Boss you need to create more laws to accomodate me as a whole with generic discussion.
Amazing.

To me this is gibberish. If anyone else can vouch for the sense of it I'll let it stand. You have 24 hours to make sense of it or I will delete it.

A big apology .. I thought you deleted my Topic.
I feel little embarrased.,
I thought too bad about you.
Sorry.

Hard Facts are little difficult to swallow.
You should understand the theory first before recommending any kind of movement.
Infact I would request some Senior member like Pasti to comment on it as I have complete faith in him.
From Anomaly to m-theory I do not deny your contribution in making this happen.
Had you not asked for it I would not have given it in this forum.
As I had said the method of acceptance or non-acceptance of my theory determines my future posts in this forum.
If all goes without proper reasoning then I would probably never like to post again here.
My intention was to share the Truth and not the politics behind it.

can someone show me an algorithm for randomness please