10 ms·

The negative definition of 'unable to predict' is a definition that depends on the contextual information of an observer - is what I am saying. By that definit

The negative definition of 'unable to predict' is a definition that depends on the contextual information of an observer - is what I am saying. By that definition, nothing is truly random - it just depends on the ability and knowledge of an observer in a given context. You say 'geiger counter is random'. Well - what if you had a scanner, and a powerful computer, and knew the arrangement and composition of the material, and could 'predict' on some level, when those atoms would produce radiation (I know this is probably impossible) - but suppose you could. Then it would not be 'random'. I wonder if we can consider 'randomness' as an inherent quality of a system ... Though I admit 'something that is not predictable' is a nice way to communicate it, maybe even help regular people understand it better.

GeneralMayhem 10y ago
> what if you had a scanner, and a powerful computer, and knew the arrangement and composition of the material, and could 'predict' on some level, when those atoms would produce radiation (I know this is probably impossible) Quantum theory specifies that this is impossible not just in practice but in principle. Radioactive decay on an individual-atom level is literally impossible to predict, and not just because we don't have sensitive enough measurements. "Arrangement and composition" don't have their standard meaning at atomic scale; particles are probability fields, not BBs.
dahart 10y ago
Ah, you're talking about the philosophical concept of whether random even exists. As far as we (humanity) know, true randomness is still a thing. Quantum effects have no known predictors. From the article I linked: "Quantum mechanics predicts that certain physical phenomena, such as the nuclear decay of atoms, are fundamentally random and cannot, in principle, be predicted" So Quantum science believes that true random does exist. Until someone demonstrates otherwise, or I start working on the problem, I'm good accepting that for now. The tests to demonstrate these ideas are fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments In the mean time, there's the very real concept of whether something is practically predictable, and a Geiger counter is currently not practically predictable. (And worth noting, it lands into the category of currently not theoretically predictable too.) Personally, I feel like the definition "unpredictable" is quite good, especially for regular people. Going deeper than that requires all kinds of baggage and explanation. But the point the author made is very good -- people tend to start expecting things when "randomness" is involved, and that expectation is a problem, because randomness is unpredictable.
- UhUhUhUh 10y ago
  Agreed. I tend to cringe at essentialism, which can be applied to any concept. At the same time, I cringe at its opposite. If the idea of an unknown entity is not entertained, held in suspension as it were, in one's mind, I think that theory suffers. As you point out, "practically predictable" is where I would stand. Or "random enough". When I was little, in France, I was explained that the Meter was defined according to the length of a platinum alloy standard sitting in an institute in Paris... Bottom line: Randomness, is a philosophical concept, predictability is a scientific concept, asymptotic to 0, another needed absolute...
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> By that definition, nothing is truly random First of all, that statement doesn't really make much sense. By that definition, everything that you are unable to predict is random (to you), so, assuming that there are things that you are unable to predict, there are things that, from your perspective, are truly random, by that definition(!). Unless, of course, by "truly random" you mean "random as per the definition that I prefer", in which case all you are really saying is that that definition differs from your preferred definition, which might be true, but isn't really much of an argument. > I wonder if we can consider 'randomness' as an inherent quality of a system ... No, that would be a useless concept. Randomness as an inherent quality of a system would be equivalent to the claim that we will never be able to predict the respective attribute of the system, i.e. it's a claim about the impossibility to ever know something. It's a perfectly valid concept, in that there might be things that we will never know, but it's utterly useless because we will never know that we won't ever know them, i.e., it's undecidable which elements are in the set and which are outside, unless we figure out how to predict them, in which case they don't fall under either definition anymore. The only thing we can say is that we don't know how to predict something right now. The closest you can get to "objective randomness" is something like bell's inequality--but even that is falsifiable in principle.

GeneralMayhem 10y ago

> what if you had a scanner, and a powerful computer, and knew the arrangement and composition of the material, and could 'predict' on some level, when those atoms would produce radiation (I know this is probably impossible) Quantum theory specifies that this is impossible not just in practice but in principle. Radioactive decay on an individual-atom level is literally impossible to predict, and not just because we don't have sensitive enough measurements. "Arrangement and composition" don't have their standard meaning at atomic scale; particles are probability fields, not BBs.

dahart 10y ago

Ah, you're talking about the philosophical concept of whether random even exists. As far as we (humanity) know, true randomness is still a thing. Quantum effects have no known predictors. From the article I linked: "Quantum mechanics predicts that certain physical phenomena, such as the nuclear decay of atoms, are fundamentally random and cannot, in principle, be predicted" So Quantum science believes that true random does exist. Until someone demonstrates otherwise, or I start working on the problem, I'm good accepting that for now. The tests to demonstrate these ideas are fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments In the mean time, there's the very real concept of whether something is practically predictable, and a Geiger counter is currently not practically predictable. (And worth noting, it lands into the category of currently not theoretically predictable too.) Personally, I feel like the definition "unpredictable" is quite good, especially for regular people. Going deeper than that requires all kinds of baggage and explanation. But the point the author made is very good -- people tend to start expecting things when "randomness" is involved, and that expectation is a problem, because randomness is unpredictable.

UhUhUhUh 10y ago
Agreed. I tend to cringe at essentialism, which can be applied to any concept. At the same time, I cringe at its opposite. If the idea of an unknown entity is not entertained, held in suspension as it were, in one's mind, I think that theory suffers. As you point out, "practically predictable" is where I would stand. Or "random enough". When I was little, in France, I was explained that the Meter was defined according to the length of a platinum alloy standard sitting in an institute in Paris... Bottom line: Randomness, is a philosophical concept, predictability is a scientific concept, asymptotic to 0, another needed absolute...

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago

> By that definition, nothing is truly random First of all, that statement doesn't really make much sense. By that definition, everything that you are unable to predict is random (to you), so, assuming that there are things that you are unable to predict, there are things that, from your perspective, are truly random, by that definition(!). Unless, of course, by "truly random" you mean "random as per the definition that I prefer", in which case all you are really saying is that that definition differs from your preferred definition, which might be true, but isn't really much of an argument. > I wonder if we can consider 'randomness' as an inherent quality of a system ... No, that would be a useless concept. Randomness as an inherent quality of a system would be equivalent to the claim that we will never be able to predict the respective attribute of the system, i.e. it's a claim about the impossibility to ever know something. It's a perfectly valid concept, in that there might be things that we will never know, but it's utterly useless because we will never know that we won't ever know them, i.e., it's undecidable which elements are in the set and which are outside, unless we figure out how to predict them, in which case they don't fall under either definition anymore. The only thing we can say is that we don't know how to predict something right now. The closest you can get to "objective randomness" is something like bell's inequality--but even that is falsifiable in principle.