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

As we know that a supposedly random outcome can be simulated it becomes very impotant to know what is random and what is not.
The outcome should conform to certain satistical truths.
If the statistical truths are known then again there is chance of simlating that statistical reality which again makes it appear like a random number.
So far so good if we know that the no creator created these numbers.
But dear friends if we know that there was a creator who wanted to simulate the randomness we know that experiments using the data is not 100% correct.
What is meant by creating a random number.It means that if you know the initial conditions completely then you can predict the outcome at any stage which will make the base assumption of probability false.
The creator must loose the prediction ability of events in order to create the perfect random series.
In principle this is not obvious until we go to the level of Quantum physics where things are happening actually to such an unknown extent that we do not reason behind it and we bring in the probability naturally.
Elsewhere it is just a simulation and only simulation because the randomness is not pure.

Whether some ditzy religion or some ditzy movie, buncha crap. Do you offer pieces of hard cheese and Italian dry salami for the Keebler Elves each evening? They will exact revenge you if you do not - and always do it in a way that cannot be traced back to themselves.

The digits of pi are perfectly random by all formal and informal tests - better than any other irrational and/or transcendental number. For all that...

Interesting inter-pi sequences (digits after the decimal):

271828182845 from 1,016,065,419,627-th
314159265358 from 1,142,905,318,634-th

012345678910 from 1,198,842,766,717-th

01234567890 from 53,217,681,704-th
01234567890 from 148,425,641,592-th
01234567890 from 461,766,198,041-th
01234567890 from 542,229,022,495-th
01234567890 from 674,836,914,243-th
01234567890 from 731,903,047,549-th
01234567890 from 751,931,754,993-th
01234567890 from 884,326,441,338-th
01234567890 from 1,073,216,766,668-th

98765432109 from 123,040,860,473-th
98765432109 from 133,601,569,485-th
98765432109 from 150,339,161,883-th
98765432109 from 183,859,550,237-th
98765432109 from 300,854,719,683-th
98765432109 from 534,846,931,487-th
98765432109 from 593,100,546,152-th
98765432109 from 609,238,336,350-th
98765432109 from 647,565,670,462-th
98765432109 from 936,998,389,684-th
98765432109 from 1,116,106,038,318-th

09876543210 from 42,321,758,803-th
09876543210 from 57,402,068,394-th
09876543210 from 83,358,197,954-th
09876543210 from 264,556,921,332-th
09876543210 from 437,898,859,384-th
09876543210 from 454,479,252,941-th
09876543210 from 614,717,584,937-th
09876543210 from 704,023,668,380-th
09876543210 from 718,507,192,392-th
09876543210 from 790,092,685,538-th

All that occurs with the expected statistical incidence and spacing. Pi digit frequency distributions for 1.2x10^12 digits,

0: 119,999,636,735
1: 120,000,035,569
2: 120,000,620,567
3: 119,999,716,885
4: 120,000,114,112
5: 119,999,710,206
6: 119,999,941,333
7: 119,999,740,505
8: 120,000,830,484
9: 119,999,653,604

It's hard to understand what you're talking about dkv.

Are you suggesting that numbers exist as things that were created? Even if there is an ultimate creator, how does that require that numbers themselves be created? I can see how things can be created, and quantities of things. But numbers are just a way to keep track of those quantities, the ratios between those quantities, and how they change. No need for numbers themselves to be created.

Or are you suggesting that random events require a creator? Again, even if there is an ultimate creator, how does that require that the randomness of events be created? Random events occur because of the complexity of interactions of multiple things, so that even knowing the beginning state of everything you still can't predict later conditions.

Or are you suggesting that it's no good relying on apparent randomness for our trust in statistical probabilities, because a sly creator might set things up to appear random for all intents and purposes, but really they were chosen to be exactly as they are? But a purposely-chosen set of outcomes that is indistinguishable from a random set of outcomes is just as useful for statistical probability as a truly random set of outcomes, right? There being no difference, there's no difference.

You have misunderstood me and thats why we discuss here.
What do I mean by Random?
REP: Random in time and not number space.
=======================
The digits of pi are perfectly random by all formal and informal tests - better than any other irrational and/or transcendental number. For all that...
REP: I do not question that.I question the randomness(wrt to time) in experiment. PI can be represented using an equation and its value can be calculated if know the relationship between Nth digit and Time.So in principle it is possible to say what appears to random is not random at all(for someone).
=====================================
Are you suggesting that numbers exist as things that were created?
REP: Yes it got created in our thoughts.Thoughts are real...
==============================
Even if there is an ultimate creator, how does that require that numbers themselves be created?
REP: I do not think such a question can be answered. Creator for me is myself.It all got created in my head.
===========================================

One more clarification here.
A random sequence generator ,with any knowledge of means of knowing all the future values ,can also be treated using the probablistic principles. However it does not necssarily ensures the purity of the results because the events were always known and deterministic in principle.
For someone everything was known with certainity.
Which makes the theroy of probabilty mere a cover up something as simple and known as finding the nth digit using a formula.
Quantum Physics says that it is impossible to say what will happen with certainity. It probability is the base nature of Phsyics and this is the reason I say simulation is just a simulation if it is not using Quantum laws.

" I do not think such a question can be answered. Creator for me is myself.It all got created in my head."

You mean the world and everything in it is just something you dreamed up one day, and it's all in your head? We're all figments of your imagination?

You need serious help.

You mean the world and everything in it is just something you dreamed up one day, and it's all in your head? We're all figments of your imagination?
REP: I never said it was all dreamed up one day.
What I say is this: "Any things which comes to me gets verified by my brain based on empirical evidence , trust , popular belief etc... there is no way I can say that there is any other reality except that which is understood by me.Anything which is of consequence is created in my head.Not everyone will agree to what I say or believe which means that there are multiple ways of understanding the same obejective reality and my reality is just mine .. its my rainbow.If my brain refuses to acknowledge the Universe then my reality will be totally different from yours...However then I will be in a minority or in some hospital or on death bed or some saint.It is very tough to deny the reality... many practice such denials in India ..." Got it?

You. Are. Nuts.

What do we need to create Life or anything which gets created in this Universe?

Amaranth Rose, LOL

I didn't understand you from the first post - either in this thread or any other one. I don't understand the gist of it and I certainly don't understand the particulars.

I'm not aware that anyone uses a program in an attempt to prove or disprove god. I would a priori doubt the conclusions of any such program.

In computers, I think the closest we could come to truely random distribution would be hooking it up to a device that measured some supposedly random event - like decay of a particle.

Most computers opt instead to use what is called a Pseudo-random number generator, or PRNG. A PRNG gives numbers that meet certain criteria that we expect to see in random numbers, but are actually derived from a mathematical algorithm.

For most purposes - whether gaming, or scientific research - this is sufficient, and even desirable. It is sufficient because it gives the sort of results that we expect in the outcome and it is desirable because it gives us something that we really like in science - repeatability. In a sense, a PRNG is a simulator. It simulates an RNG (or true Random Number Generator).

The PRNG is a powerful tool for the simulationist.

Some PRNGs are better than others - better in the sense that they better match those criteria: including the actual sample distribution, the means, and variance (over time and in segments), and in the length of the sequence before it starts repeating.

I've never quite made the jump to "individual realities" as opposed to individual perceptions of reality in the general sense. I understand that in some cases relativity comes into place and that actual reality can be different - but this is a VERY long from saying that "anything goes" or that "every perception is 'just as real' as any other perception." I understand that there are people who assert otherwise. I don't know that you are one of them, but there are some people who do make this sort of assertion. I do not believe them - and I suspect that if they understood what they were saying, that they wouldn't believe it either.

At the end of the movie "Brazil," the main character goes deep inside his head and is free in his own mind no matter that his tormenters are torturing him horribly and relentlessly. In the movie we are happy for this character. *I* was happy for the character. But no matter what he perceived, had his torturers put a few amps through his gray stuff - or dropped him from a helicopter - his reality would have ceased to exist. There was - there is! - a higher reality.

I only vaguely get the connection you're trying to make here. I think it's entirely possible that we don't understand everything about randomness - that there's more to it than meets the eye. I think it's possible that we (collectively in the majority) make a lot of assumptions about what randomness means and what it implies that may not be strictly true. I certainly think that this opinion holds true for many lay people, and I think it's even probable among many scientists. It's even possible that experts in statistical sciences are mistaken in this way, though less likely in my view.

This is still a long way from saying that all perceptions are equally real. I'm really not following your point.

There is reality and there is perception, point-of-view, vantage, bias.. these are all different concepts than reality. DKV, is that what you intended to state and convey, "perception" as opposed to "reality"?

Sincerely,

I didn't understand you from the first post - either in this thread or any other one. I don't understand the gist of it and I certainly don't understand the particulars.
REP: Thats not good report card.
====================================
I'm not aware that anyone uses a program in an attempt to prove or disprove god. I would a priori doubt the conclusions of any such program.
REP:Neither I think anyone can because the concept is Science.
=====================================
In computers, I think the closest we could come to truely random distribution would be hooking it up to a device that measured some supposedly random event - like decay of a particle.
REP: Good answer.It is very close to a true Random generator.A true random generator can also be derived from complex systems having non-linear properties.
==============================================
Most computers opt instead to use what is called a Pseudo-random number generator, or PRNG. A PRNG gives numbers that meet certain criteria that we expect to see in random numbers, but are actually derived from a mathematical algorithm.
REP:A mathematical algorithm is predictable if executed under controlled situations..
====================================
For most purposes - whether gaming, or scientific research - this is sufficient, and even desirable. It is sufficient because it gives the sort of results that we expect in the outcome and it is desirable because it gives us something that we really like in science - repeatability. In a sense, a PRNG is a simulator. It simulates an RNG (or true Random Number Generator).
REP: It simulates and only simulates the true Random Generator.
==================================
The PRNG is a powerful tool for the simulationist.
REP:It actually fails to simulate certain well known documented aspects of Naturally occuring random number.
=========================================
Some PRNGs are better than others - better in the sense that they better match those criteria: including the actual sample distribution, the means, and variance (over time and in segments), and in the length of the sequence before it starts repeating.
REP: Again an algorithm is used to simulate which makes it a predictable excercise.
===============================
I've never quite made the jump to "individual realities" as opposed to individual perceptions of reality in the general sense.
REP:In classical Physics there are no absolute reference frames.All are equivalent.So much so that Gravity can be replaced by Geometry.
When you add Quantum Physics I think you end up no absolute reality.All are equivalent and capable of existence.The struggle of different realities assign the property called as AGE to individual entities.
Thus there are superior realities and thus superior Goals.
====================================
I understand that in some cases relativity comes into place and that actual reality can be different - but this is a VERY long from saying that "anything goes" or that "every perception is 'just as real' as any other perception." I understand that there are people who assert otherwise. I don't know that you are one of them, but there are some people who do make this sort of assertion. I do not believe them - and I suspect that if they understood what they were saying, that they wouldn't believe it either.
REP: Do not beleive anyone.Look at it logically yourself and then decide.
================================
At the end of the movie "Brazil," the main character goes deep inside his head and is free in his own mind no matter that his tormenters are torturing him horribly and relentlessly. In the movie we are happy for this character. *I* was happy for the character. But no matter what he perceived, had his torturers put a few amps through his gray stuff - or dropped him from a helicopter - his reality would have ceased to exist. There was - there is! - a higher reality.
REP: The forces of realities(perception or whatever) disallow us to deviate too much.But it does not prevent you from denying it if someone is determined enough.If you are 'really' happy and known that this will never go then thats it, you have found what you were looking for.
=======================================
I only vaguely get the connection you're trying to make here. I think it's entirely possible that we don't understand everything about randomness - that there's more to it than meets the eye. I think it's possible that we (collectively in the majority) make a lot of assumptions about what randomness means and what it implies that may not be strictly true.
REP: Unpredictability is not understood.Unpredictable is just unpredictable.Even in principle.Once you achieve that you will find miracles do happen.
==================================
I certainly think that this opinion holds true for many lay people, and I think it's even probable among many scientists. It's even possible that experts in statistical sciences are mistaken in this way, though less likely in my view.
REP: Ask them, How can we build a true random generator which is unpredictable in principle?
==========================================
This is still a long way from saying that all perceptions are equally real. I'm really not following your point.
REP:I have explained to you that what reality means.Your perception is truthful to you unless someone presents you a better picture. And as of now there is no absolute known picture and I doubt that if there is any.But there is definetly a better picture than the previous one.
And that is the unknown and unsaid goal of Science.(And life because today Religion and Science dominate everything around us)
The process of acheiving a better reality imporves the AGE of its constituents.
Interestingly Religion also has the same goal.
=======================================

"A true random generator can also be derived from complex systems having non-linear properties."
That is not obvious.

"A mathematical algorithm is predictable if executed under controlled situations"
That is the point - reproducibility.

" Do not beleive anyone.Look at it logically yourself and then decide."
I've looked at it logically 45 years. Think I can reach a tentative conclusion by this time. Anyone who professes to believe in "individual realities" is either 1) not a logical person or 2) not a very honest person. (On the good side, while most people believe themselves to be logical, the fact is they are anything but. Logic is a good deal more difficult than most people think.)

"Unpredictability is not understood.Unpredictable is just unpredictable.Even in principle.Once you achieve that you will find miracles do happen."
Enrico Fermi said, "A miracle is any event with a probability of less than 10%."

"Your perception is truthful to you unless someone presents you a better picture. "
My reality makes sense to me unless someone presents a picture that makes better sense.

People don't decide what they want to believe. They believe what makes sense to them.

"A true random generator can also be derived from complex systems having non-linear properties."
That is not obvious.
REP: Yes it is not obvious.But if you carefully study the non-linearity of some complex Macro events like thunderstorms,Giant Waves , Evolution etc (I have deliberately included Evolution) then they fall into the category of Naturally occuring manifestations of Non-linear Quantum Wave Function distribution.Therefore in my opinion they can substitute the basic Physical concept of True Random Generators.
=========================================
"A mathematical algorithm is predictable if executed under controlled situations"
That is the point - reproducibility.
REP: Reproducibility of what ???? Not everything can be reproduced exactly.And where it can , the system fails to simulate the true nature of Nature.
=========================================
" Do not beleive anyone.Look at it logically yourself and then decide."
I've looked at it logically 45 years.
REP:45 Years is a very long time.But not long enough otherwise Einstien would not have made any mistakes.
=====================================
Think I can reach a tentative conclusion by this time. Anyone who professes to believe in "individual realities" is either 1) not a logical person or 2) not a very honest person. (On the good side, while most people believe themselves to be logical, the fact is they are anything but. Logic is a good deal more difficult than most people think.)
REP: Difficult !! Everyday the machine called brain executes so many 'logical' steps everyday to earn its pleasures and reasons for existence..
A dishonest Reality (as you call it) dies very soon because there are better ones.I hope that makes you happy. I can take this forward to say something more complicated but that will be too much.
===========================================
"Unpredictability is not understood.Unpredictable is just unpredictable.Even in principle.Once you achieve that you will find miracles do happen."
Enrico Fermi said, "A miracle is any event with a probability of less than 10%."
REP: Ok fine...Once in a lifetime event can also be a Miracle.However there are people who live Miracles everyday as it goes against common sense.
=====================================
"Your perception is truthful to you unless someone presents you a better picture. "
My reality makes sense to me unless someone presents a picture that makes better sense.
People don't decide what they want to believe. They believe what makes sense to them.
REP: You are all alone when you make that decision.If it appeals to you then you will stand up for the so called outcasted description of Nature.There are people who believe in what they believe till they die .. even if the world says you are crazy and should be hanged..

"REP: Reproducibility of what ???? Not everything can be reproduced exactly.And where it can , the system fails to simulate the true nature of Nature."

Usually when scientists use simulations to gather data, they want reproducibility of the results. That is, they would like to be able to give their model to someone else and - with the same seed value - produce the exact same results.

"45 Years is a very long time.But not long enough otherwise Einstien would not have made any mistakes."

People make mistakes. But right or wrong, people believe what makes sense to them, not what they decide to believe.

" Difficult !! Everyday the machine called brain executes so many 'logical' steps everyday to earn its pleasures and reasons for existence.."

No. The brain does many things well, but logic is a strain for it. Logic is trivial for computers (well, for applied logic), but very difficult and even alien for some people.

"A dishonest Reality (as you call it) dies very soon because there are better ones.I hope that makes you happy. I can take this forward to say something more complicated but that will be too much."

I don't think there is a dishonest reality. I don't even think there's a dishonest perception of reality. People do not decide what they believe. They only decide what they profess. If they profess what they do not actually believe, then they are being dishonest (there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing this - yes there are honest reasons for being dishonest!). But the belief is not dishonest. It's the profession of belief that is dishonest.

"45 Years is a very long time.But not long enough otherwise Einstien would not have made any mistakes."
People make mistakes. But right or wrong, people believe what makes sense to them, not what they decide to believe.
REP: There are people who do it.They simply decide to belive that you are wrong (because of emotional compulsions)and will do anything to prove it. You are aware of such examples.
Sometimes it is ok to do so otherwise Science and Christanity would not have come into existence...
========================================
" Difficult !! Everyday the machine called brain executes so many 'logical' steps everyday to earn its pleasures and reasons for existence.."
No. The brain does many things well, but logic is a strain for it. Logic is trivial for computers (well, for applied logic), but very difficult and even alien for some people.
REP: If you notice I had used the strings with 'logic' because the human brain is beyond the digital logic.It is the superset of any Mathematical executional paradigm.
==========================================
"A dishonest Reality (as you call it) dies very soon because there are better ones.I hope that makes you happy. I can take this forward to say something more complicated but that will be too much."
I don't think there is a dishonest reality. I don't even think there's a dishonest perception of reality. People do not decide what they believe. They only decide what they profess. If they profess what they do not actually believe, then they are being dishonest (there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing this - yes there are honest reasons for being dishonest!). But the belief is not dishonest. It's the profession of belief that is dishonest.
REP: That was too much for me!!
Beliefs can change....but it doesnot mean that a dead faith was not useful in its own period...

Usually when scientists use simulations to gather data, they want reproducibility of the results. That is, they would like to be able to give their model to someone else and - with the same seed value - produce the exact same results.
REP:Exact Reproducibility is not a criteria of Nature to make things happen.Physics also recognizes this(some dispute it.. but it is a valid theory).

Exact replication is preferred in simulations. This is because people have a (correct) mistrust of results that just pop out of the computer. And the failure to achieve exact replication can be an indication of several things - the proto-science of chaos theory was born when a scientist modeling weather noted radical differences in output due to truncation of inputs.

Of course there are simulations where this would not matter. But there are many where it does.

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