Quote:
Originally Posted by rahmani
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No, you can't construct a system to behave randomly, because in order to create it, you must know the inputs. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is the fundamental theory behind quantum mechanics, by nature of our limited senses and their attachment to our brains (See: Epistemology).
We can never fully understand the processes that govern subatomic particles, because of how they react to light, i.e. photons which then react with our eyes. Our understanding of location and frequency breaks down exponentially the smaller the particles are, and they appear to behave randomly. And also, by measuring them, we are affecting their behavior.
However, for us humans there is one method to get truly random numbers, in the sense of quantum mechanics. We can attach a radioactive material to a sensor, which then counts the time between nuclear particle decay. However, the numbers would be random, their measurements of central tendency (mean, median, mode) would change over time, as there were fewer and fewer nuclear particles to produce said phenomena. |
Okay. I see from your answer that I failed to state my query clearly. Trust me, I'm not trying to move goalposts, I just didn't get my thoughts out the first time. This may be a more succinct way of asking:
Is there any mathematically-based school of thought, of which any of you are aware, that challenges the very concept of "random"?
I ask because of just another gut reaction (instinct): When I observe things occur that seem random, I can always break down the event in hindsight to see the root cause. It's like finding the source of a software bug... It didn't just happen. There was a cause, to which there was a cause, to which there was a cause...
Could I not challenge the assertion that the example of coin-flipping students represents truly random sequences? It
seems more random than the kids just stating their "random" sequences. If we
could know all physical properties as they have existed from a "beginning" to the moment of the coin flip, could we predict with certainty the result of the flip?
My gut tells me "Sure. You know all that has come before. Use that knowledge, with your understanding of physics, calculate what happens next." Hell, you'd have to account for your own thoughts in such a hypothetical, as the chemical reactions might have a bearing on the flip.
Aw hell. I've begun puking out another wall of prose. Hopefully, there are enough thought crumbs above for anyone that might care to revisit the thread.