Random Number

[Strilanc]

Ok, sorry about that, but what ever entropy you use, numbers are STILL not random, and you know it...

...

Because there is always a kind of a scheme, no matter how hard it is to detect for humans.

Information entropy is pretty much the practical definition of randomness. If you have entropy, you have randomness. It might make more sense to think of it as "unpredictability", but the math works out the same either way.

But you're getting into philosophical territory at this point (Are there any inherently random physical processes?) The current consensus is: yes, there are "true" random processes. You've probably heard about it when people discuss quantum mechanics. You might want to read about bell's inequality and interpretations of quantum mechanics if you want to be so low-level about it. I personally think the existence of the universe is pretty strong evidence that not everything is deterministic.

 

[Darthfett]

If a random number seems to be picked in bursts, it doesn't mean that it's not "random enough". That has nothing to do with how "random" something is. What are your chances of flipping a coin and getting heads 4 times in a row? 50% * 50% * 50% * 50% (6.25% chance). Let's say that you've already flipped three heads in a row. What are your chances of getting heads? 50%. What has happened already has absolutely no effect on your chances.

 

[Moon_Raven]

Information entropy is pretty much the practical definition of randomness. If you have entropy, you have randomness. It might make more sense to think of it as "unpredictability", but the math works out the same either way.

But you're getting into philosophical territory at this point (Are there any inherently random physical processes?) The current consensus is: yes, there are "true" random processes. You've probably heard about it when people discuss quantum mechanics. You might want to read about bell's inequality and interpretations of quantum mechanics if you want to be so low-level about it. I personally think the existence of the universe is pretty strong evidence that not everything is deterministic.

Thanks for the links, the information is interesting(although it is wikipedia), but we are getting far away from our topic

Because no matter what enthropy method are you using, there will still be a scheme behind the nubmers, only it is so difficult to detect, that we, poor mortal humans, can freely call it random.

 

[Sajberhippie]

EDIT: Realized the thread was more than one page and what I said had already been said.

 

[Dirac]

Ok, i created the following trigger...
Event - Map Init
Conditions -
Actions - Game Display to All Players the Texto (Integer(Random number between 1 and 1000))

It always returns 712, which means... warcraft's random numbers depends on external factors? such as position of units - time elapsed?

 

[Sajberhippie]

Ok, i created the following trigger...
Event - Map Init
Conditions -
Actions - Game Display to All Players the Texto (Integer(Random number between 1 and 1000))

It always returns 712, which means... warcraft's random numbers depends on external factors? such as position of units - time elapsed?

You have to uncheck a certain option in the "preferences" menu in the WE. It's on the first page and should be easy to find.

 

[Komaqtion]

It's Use Fixed Random Seed
And can be found in:
File -> Preferences -> Test Map
Then uncheck that option

 

[Strilanc]

... there will still be a scheme behind the nubmers, only it is so difficult to detect, that we, poor mortal humans, can freely call it random.

So you're a determinist. Wikipedia can put it better than me: arguments against determinism.

To put it shortly: modern physics is not deterministic, and the "cause of the universe" can't be deterministic. It's not just difficult to detect, it's impossible. The thing you want to detect does not exist.

 

[Sajberhippie]

So you're a determinist. Wikipedia can put it better than me: arguments against determinism.

To put it shortly: modern physics is not deterministic, and the "cause of the universe" can't be deterministic. It's not just difficult to detect, it's impossible. The thing you want to detect does not exist.

You're probably more knowledgeable about this than me, and we're off-topic but since the problem has been solved I guess it can't hurt to ask, but isn't there a quite large leap between these things? I think what he means is:
"Everything is ruled by cause and effect (called that in english? Sorry for bad language), nothing is truly up to chance"
and from what I've understood, the problem with determinism is that it's impossible to DETECT an eventual cause, not that it's impossible for it to exist. These things don't seem exclusive; i.e. the situation could be that everything is ruled by cause and effect but that it's impossible for us to detect it.

That is anyways how I'd like to use the word "random": Something we can't predict. Not necessarily that it's impossible to predict, just that the person can't predict it at that time. It may be possible to predict a dice roll out of the weight and shape of the dice combined with the angle when the roll begins as well as the texture of the surface, but when I roll a dice, I can't, and therefore it's random.

Sorry if I'm just babbling, it's just how I thought things were and how I use the words.

 

[Strilanc]

... from what I've understood, the problem with determinism is that it's impossible to DETECT an eventual cause, not that it's impossible for it to exist. These things don't seem exclusive; i.e. the situation could be that everything is ruled by cause and effect but that it's impossible for us to detect it ...

That is possible for QM, although the hidden causes would have to be non-local. One of the consequences of that is that such causes can move backwards in time w.r.t. our frame of reference.

But it still wouldn't be consistent with the fact that the universe exists. If determinism holds, then all effects have a cause. That implies the universe is a sequence of effects with no first cause, so time must stretch back indefinitely.

I find the idea that an infinite amount of time has already passed to be contradictory. If you don't find it contradictory, there's still the matter of what causes infinite sequence of events to exist.

You have to start somewhere, and therefore there must be at least one uncaused event, and therefore determinism (all events have causes) is false. It could still be true that all events except the first one are deterministic, but I'm not sure how you would go about showing this was true.

 

[Moon_Raven]

Ok, but why you disagree that time streches back indefinetely? It makes sense...

 

[Strilanc]

Ok, but why you disagree that time streches back indefinetely? It makes sense...

Because, in the scenario I gave, that would imply an infinite amount of time had passed to reach this point, which does not make sense. (Bad analogy: There are infinitely many integers, but all of them are finite.)

Note that that doesn't mean it is impossible for you to go arbitrarily far back in time. For example, a simulated universe might start at time T, then simulate forwards and backwards. But the starting point T would still need to be a finite amount of time in the past.

 

[Moon_Raven]

But no matter what point in time T you choose, there are always points that are earlier in time compared to T as you said. And as for the "Infinite amount of time has passed to reach this point"... Well it can make sense from a certain point of view.

 

[Strilanc]

But no matter what point in time T you choose, there are always points that are earlier in time compared to T as you said. And as for the "Infinite amount of time has passed to reach this point"... Well it can make sense from a certain point of view.

Yes, but the starting point is still set at a fixed time.

A different point of view? Give me a concrete case where the starting point is not a finite distance from the current time.

 

[Moon_Raven]

A different point of view? Give me a concrete case where the starting point is not a finite distance from the current time.

Well that's a point of view from which it doesn't make sense.
But try to look at the problem like this: If the time has started at a finite time, that means there wasn't any time before it. The time didn't exist before it. That doesn't make sense.

 

[unska]

Sorry to spoil your discussion but there's no such thing as randomness in the world. Everything is a reaction to a previous action.

 

[Builder Bob]

Here's a true random generator you can use to check for bursts and whatnot.


About the offtopic discussion going on.
You're moving into the territory of the creation of the universe, time and space. It's really the big problem nobody can give the answer to. We can't even ever actually know what another person is thinking, no matter how hard we try. There's always a chance he/she's lying or you're just not understanding correctly. How can we then know whether we interpret the data collected from the universe correctly, or if we're just creating the result we want to see?

Why does time require a beginning and an end? It's just a construct of our minds to help us manage our daily business. I'm not even sure there is a past and a future; just an ever changing now. The only thing I know for sure is that I can never know anything for sure.

I guess that might be too much off topic. Anyway, how can anyone know whether something is truly random, or just a pattern of uniformly distributed events which we cannot predict with our limited perception?

 

[Strilanc]

Well that's a point of view from which it doesn't make sense.
But try to look at the problem like this: If the time has started at a finite time, that means there wasn't any time before it. The time didn't exist before it. That doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? I write computer simulations all the time, and they don't define times less than 0. They make sense.

Sometimes it's even impossible for earlier states to exist! For example I can say x is an integer which is initially 2, and each tick x is changed to x*x mod 3. There is no x such that x*x mod 3 = 2, and so there can be no "time" before that initial state.

Sorry to spoil your discussion but there's no such thing as randomness in the world. Everything is a reaction to a previous action.

Maybe you should read the entire thread before posting.

 

[Moon_Raven]

Well then how do you define time? If there was a point from which there wasn't past, then time was created at a point, and it didn't exist earlier. But it was created at the point...In time again. Because if we say:

"There was a point from which time had not existed earlier."

We again use the word "earlier" and with the word before we mean before in time. So if we look at the new time we've got it has to have a beggining too,a point at which it had not existed earlier. And then we go in never ending loops, which again point to some kind of infinity.

 

[Lyle.]

Worthless topic of the Year... and its all my fault