True randomness - does it actually exist?

Question

Hi there,

I've been working on some theories recently, and one of the counter arguments to these theories is the idea of true randomness. As far as I can tell, nothing is truly random in the world - everything is based on some form of system, even if we can't determine what system or factors are involved with current technology.

However, when doing some research on random number generators on... Wikipedia (-.- sorry!)... they mentioned Zener Diodes producing sound that *appeared* to be 'truly random'. Reading on, they seem to call it true randomness because the output cannot be predicted.

Is this not incorrect? Just because a system is unpredictable, it doesn't mean that the actual system is based off a number of non-random factors that in the future possibly could be measured and used to predict the outcome?

Basically, if something is unpredictable is 'truly random' appropriate terminology, or would something along the lines of 'random for the time being' be more accurate? Does true randomness actually exist, or is it simply a myth?

Thanks,

The AnonyMoose

Answer 1

Randomness is a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.

The term is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation. Monte Carlo Methods, which rely on random input, are important techniques of computational science.[1] Random selection is an official method to resolve tied elections in some jurisdictions[2], and is even an ancient method of divination, as in tarot, the I Ching, and bibliomancy.

Many scientific fields are concerned with randomness:

-Algorithmic probability

-Chaos theory

-Cryptography

-Game theory

-Information theory

-Pattern recognition

-Probability theory

-Quantum mechanics

-Statistics

-Statistical mechanics

Humankind has been concerned with random physical processes since pre-historic times. Examples are divination (cleromancy, reading messages in casting lots), the use of allotment in the Athenian democracy, and the frequent references to the casting of lots found in the Old Testament.

Despite the prevalence of gambling in all times and cultures, for a long time there was little inquiry into the subject. Though Gerolamo Cardano and Galileo wrote about games of chance, the first mathematical treatments were given by Blaise Pascal, Pierre de Fermat and Christiaan Huygens. The classical version of probability theory that they developed proceeds from the assumption that outcomes of random processes are equally likely; thus they were among the first to give a definition of randomness in statistical terms. The concept of statistical randomness was later developed into the concept of information entropy in information theory.

In the early 1960s Gregory Chaitin, Andrey Kolmogorov and Ray Solomonoff introduced the notion of algorithmic randomness, in which the randomness of a sequence depends on whether it is possible to compress it.

Answer 2

I have read somewhere that true randomness doesn't exist.  Much may have to do with our definitions, but I think that is essentially true.  radioactive decay is said to be as close to true rendomness as anything can get.  And yet, a given isotope will have a very predictable half-life, which is distinctly different from other isotopes.  *Something's* going on there.  Something is different between them, and whatever that something is, it's not random.

Answer 3

random.org does a pretty good job.

IMO, predestiny was doomed from the start.

We have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.  So, there are systems which are unpredictable in principal.  And yet, very smart people who're interested in this sort of stuff, like Brian Greene, seem to think that underneath it all, it's still a clockwork.  God doesn't play dice after all.

Answer 4

True Randomness underlies ALL reality .. look up Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics ...

For any physical item, where quantum effects do NOT dominate, it might be 'more correct' to say 'ramdom to the limits of current measurement' ...