This is definitely something I've thought about a good bit but I've never been able to even lean one way or the other. Simple fact is we just don't know enough to make a an educated guess either way. On a side note finding the pattern in the uncertainty principle is the basis for core technology in the MMO EVE Online.

Pi exists.<br />
So no.

That makes no sense >.> Pi can be defined as: 4[(1/1)-(1/3)+(1/5)-(1/7)+(1/9)-(1/11)+(1/13)...] It's not random at all.

It's not random, duh.
But pi could contain literally everything known to man.
So nothing can be random, because pi exists.

That logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I too think that there is no true randomness, but irrational numbers don't prove it.

Pi is everything.
You can derive a masterpiece from it, you can derive a novel, a lame pop song, silly games, and stupid names.
Nothing is random.
Even most 'shuffle' on playlists aren't truly random. If they were, you'd hear the same song twice in a row on occasion. Maybe three times in a row. Or four.
But they cancel out that bit, so it's only somewhat random - but never playing the same song twice in a row.
This is difficult to explain, but no. Random is just a word, a feeling, but it's never a fact.

Pi is only half of the real circle constant, tau. (Tau day is coming up, too)
You can derive anything from any irrational number.
Pi isn't special for being irrational.
There are literally an infinite number of irrational numbers
Obviously nothing is truly random. That's my point. I'm just saying that your point isn't really that valid for the concept of randomness.

2 More Responses

Wow, you just completely blew my mind and I will think about this for days straight now :D Good question.

:D

Before I read this, I always thought everything is just a coincidence...but I'm not so sure now! But at the start, there must have been ONE random thing that caused the system to even come into existence?

You should take a statistics class, or buy a book on statistics. It's fascinating and makes you question randomness even more.

Yea I had statistics at High School and always loved it, and can't understand why everyone seems to hate their compulsory STATS paper at uni :)

I had a teacher that was my Algebra 2 teacher from 9th grade, and she's my favorite teacher of all time. It was also where I met my lovely Pierre, my TI-Nspire CX calculator I'm absolutely in love with!

Maybe you should ask him out on a date ;)

My calculator? Dude. I'm objectum sexual. I've been in love with my lovely Pierre since September 25th, 2013 -w- he's my lovely boyfriend.

4 More Responses

For one thing, we had the original Uncertainty Principle before fractals and there is no escaping that the better known one canonical variable the worse knowable the other. It really doesn't "render randomness" at all.<br />
What exactly are you referring to in "random" special fog effects? It isn't random: when they blow smoke there is some and where they don't there is none.<br />
It's 3:48AM and I'm going to watch the Resident Evil Trilogy for hours on end. :)

I'm talking about the *rendered* fog effects (as in advanced CGI particle systems in things like video games or the fractal effects in Frozen).

Your username implies a knowledge of fractals which should immediately be that they are specifically generated by predictable iterative algorithms, i. e., not random in RL or rendered by computer in non-random equations.
z(n+1) = [z(n)]^2 +C
And now a brief (or long) visual of zombies randomly appearing to kill people. There was significant video enhancement there, not at all random.

Even when they blow actual smoke it appears to spread and move rather randomly but it's actually just reacting to its environment...

Dude I know about the Julia Sets xDDD read my thing on "I love the Mandelbrot Set."

Brownian Motion.

Fractal: I know you know which is why you should not state there is any randomness. Points are either in the set or not depending on known specifications. Randomness implies no predictability; fractal sets are reproductively constructed using known equations.

I know that there is no randomness. That's my point. I'm asking EP what they think about it.

Brownian Motion appears random.
The zombies are about to confront the living, so I'll be off for awhile.

Again, my point exactly.

6 More Responses

True randomness doesn't exist... WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??

Read this and my featured story. Did you watch the Nova Documentary?

Yes, I just watched the part 1. But I mean, what is the ramification of that? What does it mean? I guess it's like asking, "What is infinity?". It seems something that can't be comprehended by human beings... yet.

It's hard to explain :P One needs to really have a passion in the topic to understand it.

Well, tell us when you have found a condensed philosophical answer to that...

Our understanding of quantum mechanics and mathematics means nothing to the rest of the universe, but in our brief period of existence, we try and do as much as we can to understand as much of it as possible--otherwise there is no point in a collective existence. The mathematicians are the most pure of all the professions: they explain what is with absolute truth, and have the power of Proof to conquer seemingly impossible ideas such as infinity. Without the mathematicians, the rest of everything would collapse. The best way to understand infinity is by taking the largest known number, and then adding it to itself to get an even larger number, and then repeating the process over and over again. It's even simpler when one thinks of the largest number n, and then asks what n+1 is. This is known as mathematical induction. This subject is pure pr0n to my eyes, because of how godly it is, and how nothing is if mathematics isn't. :D

Ok, so what I'm wondering is... say that there is a pattern to randomness. But the pattern is going to get more and more infinitely complex, and it goes to infinity. How do you solve that?

Fractals are infinitely complex yet they are defined by the simplest of rules. The Mandelbrot Set is literally nothing more than z_n+1=(z_n)^2 + z_0 for every point on the complex plane in bounds [2,-2,2i,-2i]. If it escapes to infinity, then it's not in the set. If it stays close to z, then it is in the Mandelbrot set. Nothing more, yet it effects such a complex figure.

So, can you actually find every patterns for every randomness? Or no. What if we were to find the "complete theorem", that states: "There is no true randomness"?

Why is the idea that there is no true randomness, somewhat discomforting? :P Perhaps it's because we can't give into "chance", or "fairness" or "throwing dice". It's ironic, isn't, since predictability should equal control and power, and control and power should be settling... but it's not.

We have not been able to prove whether or not true randomness exists, but so far, we've been able to knock out ideas of randomness one by one. Its sort of like how people naively believe that randInt is a true random generator on their calculators, when it's nothing but a function that uses the data stored on the calculator and other variables to generate two really large numbers, multiply them together, and apply a modulus. Very sexy stuff, really, but it's not true randomness.

Determinism IS a scary thought. But just because we don't like something, we shouldn't deny its validity. Determinism is a whole different topic.

6 More Responses

No. Although chaos theories do have a dynamic intelligence to them, the universe's natural laws seem to govern all predictable outcomes, making true unpredictability nothing but a quantum dream. But want do I know...that's just my 12:43AM thought.

Everything seems to have a mathematical pattern by which it behaves. Math is truly our greatest discovery, as it is the one absolute truth we have.