Random Number

[Strilanc]

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:

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.

Now you're starting to understand, except you think it can be solved by simply allowing t=0 to stretch back indefinitely.

So let me ask a related question: even if it were infinite, what caused this infinite sequence of time to exist? Why does something exist instead of nothing? Clearly there can't be a cause that something exists instead of nothing, because a cause is something, and that would be a circular reference to something existing.

You can push causes back, but you can never push them back far enough. There must be at least one uncaused thing, and that thing would by definition be truly unpredictable, and therefore at least one truly random event exists.

 

[Builder Bob]

So let me ask a related question: even if it were infinite, what caused this infinite sequence of time to exist? Why does something exist instead of nothing?

And if it was finite, what caused this finite sequence to start? How does something come out of nothing?

Or are you saying there existed something else (in your example, the programmer and his computer) which initiated the sequence? If that were true, you just end up with the same question. What caused that to exist?

 

[Strilanc]

And if it was finite, what caused this finite sequence to start? How does something come out of nothing?

Or are you saying there existed something else (in your example, the programmer and his computer) which initiated the sequence? If that were true, you just end up with the same question. What caused that to exist?

Right. I'm arguing against determinism here (all things have a cause), and you've come to the conclusion I agree with. There must be at least one uncaused thing.

 

[Builder Bob]

Right. I'm arguing against determinism here (all things have a cause), and you've come to the conclusion I agree with. There must be at least one uncaused thing.

You're right. It must. So the question is; did everything always exist, or did something truly random create it all? That is where we go our separate ways I guess, as I believe everything is eternal, always changing.

In my mind that doesn't exclude random events though. It might just be me wanting remain some form of free will. A choice for me is a random event for you. You can try to manipulate the probabilities, but the choice is ultimately mine to make. All energy could have this quality, and we could still be fooled to think everything is deterministic just because of the many similar patterns of energy we encounter every day.

Edit: I think I'm just going more and more off topic... I'm just going to stop.

 

[Moon_Raven]

Then lets assume that time is finite. Our world is in time, so when there was no time, there wer no such things as our worlds and dimensions? And time couldn't have just been created like that, it must have been caused by something before it. and what existed before time is almost impossible for us to understand. And even before that, again something must had existed before. And again before that...We are going in infinite loops. Infinite loops.

 

[Strilanc]

Then lets assume that time is finite. Our world is in time, so when there was no time, there wer no such things as our worlds and dimensions? And time couldn't have just been created like that, it must have been caused by something before it. and what existed before time is almost impossible for us to understand. And even before that, again something must had existed before. And again before that...We are going in infinite loops. Infinite loops.

You keep assuming determinism is true when making your points. If determinism is true, then you need an infinite chain of things before that. But that's not possible, therefore determinism can't be true. You need at least one uncaused event.

 

[sithin]

idk if its been answered or not, but how about have an ingame text displaying the number of the random on each attack or spell proc, then u can see for ur self if it realy does work.

 

[Moon_Raven]

You keep assuming determinism is true when making your points. If determinism is true, then you need an infinite chain of things before that. But that's not possible, therefore determinism can't be true. You need at least one uncaused event.

Hm. What's wrong with infinite chain of things? Because it is not really infinite. It's just there is always something that happened before, so I would name that finite, but not as your finite, I call finite becuase you can count them one by one, and infinity isn't really a number. Of course there aren't infinite events as that is not a number from a point of view. But still you can always pick an event that happened before. As strange as it sounds...

idk if its been answered or not, but how about have an ingame text displaying the number of the random on each attack or spell proc, then u can see for ur self if it realy does work.

That wouldn't help determning if there was an uncaused event ever.

 

[kingkingyyk3]

Juz use GetRandomReal(), i think that is no better solution. Like Orge Magi in DotA, the tooltips said it's multicast chance is 20%, but in game, u may get 40%!

 

[jig7c]

use this
event
a unit starts the effect of an ability
condtion
and condition
random number between 1 and 100 equal to or less than 5
random number between 101 and 200 equal to or less than 105
action
<whatever actions you want>

 

[jig7c]

Right. I'm arguing against determinism here (all things have a cause), and you've come to the conclusion I agree with. There must be at least one uncaused thing.

i could have sworn, the guy is asking for a way to get a random number, not a course in philosophy

don't mean to double post...

 

[Strilanc]

Hm. What's wrong with infinite chain of things? Because it is not really infinite. It's just there is always something that happened before, so I would name that finite, but not as your finite, I call finite becuase you can count them one by one, and infinity isn't really a number. Of course there aren't infinite events as that is not a number from a point of view. But still you can always pick an event that happened before. As strange as it sounds...

That's not what finite means. More specifically, you're talking about the difference between countable and uncountable infinite sets.

We've already been over this. Even if every event is preceded by another one, that doesn't explain why the chain of infinite events exists.

Maybe if I put this mathematically?

Let E be the set of all events
Let x < y be a relation over E meaning "x caused y".
---
1 - E is itself an event, so E contains E.
2 - E can't be caused by any element within E. There is no x in E such that x < E.
3 - Determinism says for all y in E there is a x such that x < y.
4 - (1 and 2) contradicts 3
5 - Therefore determinism is false, or E isn't contained in E, or E can be caused by an element in E.

So is your position that the set of all events isn't an event, or that it can be caused by an event it contains?

 

[Sajberhippie]

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.

Sorry, didn't understand this part. What is QM and what is w.r.t.? I'm a Swede and not to good at English :/...

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.

Well, determinism could be limited to for example this universe, much that we think our dimensions may not exist under all circumstances. It could be that the cause of the universe lies outside the universe, where this set of rules may not apply. This is much like the counter-argument you see from religious groups to the question "who created god?"; most religions, and especially frantic proposers of these religions, tend to be deterministic in nature with a big exception of a creator god.

Oh, and please note that I in no way try to say that I'm sure the universe is deterministic, or that there is an outside source of the universe or anything, I'm just trying to get some clarification of the matter since I find it highly interesting but fail at all kinds of of scholarly studies.

I find the idea that an infinite amount of time has already passed to be contradictory.

Me too, but on the other hand many things in the universe that we take for granted now would seem extremely contradictory to someone in the 13th century, if we just told them what is without explaining how and why.
Rational thoughts are always a good thing, but some things seem extremely opposed to our rationality yet are true (take for example the wave-particle duality of light; to anyone who does not know why or how this can be, merely having it stated to them that light is a particle and a wave seems extremely weird and irrational).

but I'm not sure how you would go about showing this was true.

If people knew how to it would already have been done

Well, what can with quite certainity be said is that most events that we notice and can understand are deterministic in nature. In our civilization and even world I'd say, you'd be hard-pressed to find an event without a cause.

 

[TheDamien]

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.

Same for future states. Say that x is an irrational number which is initially the square root of 5, and at each tick x is changed to x*x mod 3.

But this whole debate is word salad. So many intuitive, unverifiable assumptions are made about things that are outside the observable universe, that discussion on this topic is essentially meaningless. Why the ultimate nature of reality should even feature something like time is never adequately explained.

There are much better arguments against determinism that arise from quantum mechanics and the observed behavior of the physical universe.

 

[Strilanc]

Same for future states. Say that x is an irrational number which is initially the square root of 5, and at each tick x is changed to x*x mod 3.

But this whole debate is word salad. So many intuitive, unverifiable assumptions are made about things that are outside the observable universe, that discussion on this topic is essentially meaningless. Why the ultimate nature of reality should even feature something like time is never adequately explained.

There are much better arguments against determinism that arise from quantum mechanics and the observed behavior of the physical universe.

sqr(5)*sqr(5) mod 3 is 2 [edit: oh you meant 2 isn't irrational]. But there are cases where simulations have a fixed or implicit end point, of course.

This debate is not word salad. It might be philosophical, and not practical, but the arguments still have to make sense. I don't think I've stated time must be part of the ultimate nature of reality. In fact my position pretty much directly contradicts that.

Observational arguments aren't as strong as deductive arguments. But I agree that QM strongly indicates non-determinism.

Sorry, didn't understand this part. What is QM and what is w.r.t.? I'm a Swede and not to good at English :/...

...

Well, what can with quite certainity be said is that most events that we notice and can understand are deterministic in nature. In our civilization and even world I'd say, you'd be hard-pressed to find an event without a cause.

Quantum Mechanics. With respect To.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't reason about the world.

 

[Sajberhippie]

Quantum Mechanics. With respect To.

I see!

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't reason about the world.

We agree on that.

 

[Lghtofthmoon]

So based on all of this... if I believe in an omniscient God does that make me a determinist? Or, for you Christian scholars out there, does the divine ability of free will grant you the ability to transcend the laws of a universal creator and make decisions and influence events that may very well be entirely exclusive from one another?

 

[Strilanc]

So based on all of this... if I believe in an omniscient God does that make me a determinist? Or, for you Christian scholars out there, does the divine ability of free will grant you the ability to transcend the laws of a universal creator and make decisions and influence events that may very well be entirely exclusive from one another?

It's sortof a naive definition of omniscience that requires knowing everything, regardless of logical contradictions. "If you're so omniscient, you should know a valid and sound proof that 1=2! You don't? You're not omniscient!". Clearly there are things which are inherently unknowable.

A person claiming God is omniscient and that free will exists probably includes "outcome of freewill actions" in the class of things which are inherently unknowable. It's too blatantly contradictory otherwise. The best you could do in that case is know the probabilities. If you believe something knows the outcome of all future actions, then clearly all future actions must be deterministic.

 

[Ashcat]

You don't get more random than the random number generator. If you don't want procs to come in bursts, increase the chance of the proc and put an internal cooldown on the effect so it can't occur more than once every X seconds.

 

[Curo]

Sorry to necro this, but it is a really interesting thread to read. It's the perfect example of how discussions can evolve on forums. Some would call it off-topic, I call it learning.

I did some searching because I'm also having problems with "random" integers coming in bursts. My skill has a 5% chance to proc, and it's seeming more like a 30%+ chance consistently. The consistency is what worries me. Beyond the whole philosophical discussion of whether or not "true randomness" exists, we can also look at "perceived randomness". The WC3 engine is not even generating numbers that are perceived to be random. You may say that it is all in my perception, but if I want to trigger a 5% spell, and in all/most cases it does not end up being 5%, then we have a real problem, as it is effecting the supposed balance in my map.

So AceHart provide us with:
Custom script: call SetRandomSeed(GetRandomInt(0, 1000000))

Would I simply insert this before my line of code that generates a random number? Not exactly sure how it works.

To keep with the discussion, here is something worth checking out. It talks about how time (the 4th dimension) is just a human construction: trying to make sense of something we cannot perceive in our 3 dimensional existence. It's like an intro to string theory video, very interesting.