weeeeeellllll... I'm not sure quantum physics would agree. everything there is a probability function; there's nothing that's not truly random.

Flipping a "fair" coin is only random if its starting position is not known. If the starting position is known, the odds change from 50:50 to 51:49 (for or against, depending on which side is called), assuming the flipper is not attempting to cheat.

Yes, if the initial velocities and physical properties of the dice and objects they contact are known, then the results can be calculated.

There exist craps players who can manipulate (without cheating) their dice throwing well enough to give themselves a slight advantage over the house.

Until we can reconcile the very large with the very small, the only thing we can know with certainty is that we don't fully understand quantum physics (or perhaps relativity, or both). We can only predict on the quantum scale using probabilities, but that is not evidence that there is no deterministic rule dictating whether a particle will be observed here or there.

Well, what if the starting position is also random:rolleyes:..

But what are the odds, however minuscule, of the coin ending up standing on edge? And how would this be computed? Define the parameters of the landing surface, size and weight and thickness of the coin, and any other factors as you please. :confused:

The principle of true randomness has nothing to do with how hard it is to calculate something, because if it can be calculated, it is not random, no matter how difficult the calculation might be.

talk about the force exerted on the coin, that causes it to flip, the angle of the force, the coin's distance from the ground, the coin's mass (mass, distance from the ground and the gravitational force would make up the coin's potential energy), the density of the air around the coin (which could affect the coin's air resistance, and therefore the side it falls on), and there would probably be a whole lot more, lol :p

I don’t think that’s true.
If we flip a coin one hundred billion times, we can accurately calculate that the percentage of heads will be almost exactly 50%, and likewise the number of tails.

In fact, randomness demands that this calculation be accurate. ;)

The only factors that I can see influencing that are:

1) Non-random tossing methods
2) Coin markings (such as a significant convex decoration on one side) that significantly shift the coin’s centre of gravity

What the odds are that at least one of those tosses resulting in the coin standing on edge, however, I haven’t a clue.

Hahahahaha, man this reminds me of a lot of conversations I have had, but since this is a family forum I will leave it up to everyone's imagination...

Depending on what level of randomness you are looking at and observing I think depends on the definition.

For example, in programming RNG (random number generators) actually aren't technically random at all. Instead they are a string of presets in which the string is picked randomly by whatever algorithm the developer has made.

In human social behavior, we have extreme levels of randomness I think. The way we act, interact, react, socialize, etc I think as a whole can be seen as random depending on perspective. There aren't really any ways of predicting or understanding some human behaviors.

True randomness, I think can be found in the universe, like the big bang theory. Though true randomness is chaos, with no system of control. Other forms of randomization are those which do have some sort of system of control but still can randomize things.

However, we all can probably agree on if you study any one thing for a long enough time you will start to see patterns. Once you see those patterns you can start to hypothesize answers, which takes away the randomness. Even in nature we can study patterns and try to predict what is going to happen. Much like our weather we have, and how the meteorologists study the patterns to deduct what weather we are going to have. It is not an exact science by any means, but it does also take away the randomness we once had of not knowing the weather.

I think if you were able to sit around and watch a bunch of gases interact in space for 100s of millions of years you could probably deduct patterns and probably even start to take away from the randomness.

Did you hear about the blitzed Swede at a party who was being introduced to somebody? All he could stutter forth was:

“How, hi are you?”

.

Do Norwegians favor Swede jokes? :eek: Here in Nova Scotia, it would be a blitzed Newfoundlander. :)

The big problem with recreating "random" has always been the frequency range -- ideally, a random signal, for example, would have a flat spectrum from 0 to infinity (don't know how to type the symbol).

Somewhat random factoid: Years ago one of the best random signal generators (white noise generator for testing electronics) on the market relied on thermionic emission: electrons radiated in an electric field by a hot filament. By itself, thermionic emission is not "flat" being clipped both low and high, so this company used two tubes and subtracted the output of one from the other to get very low frequencies. The high end was still limited by the physics, but was high enough to be useful in the radio/tv spectrum.

Here in America it would probably be an Irishmen or Polish person

One thing I would say is always random is physical competition. When I was training martial arts on a regular basis my teachers were big on saying there is no set system to fighting and that fighting was completely chaotic. You can fight the same opponent 100 times and never once have the same exact fight.

I think the same can be applied to sports.

Well, I have a confession to make. This was a true story – but it wasn’t a Swede. It was an American. From which state or of which ethnic background I do not know....

Someone from Marin County? A Texan in detox? An Arkansan who did not inhale? You’ve got me there. :D

Very interesting comparison. It is said that when two players sit down to play a game of GO, the number of possible games far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.

actually, in this era it would be a blitzed liberal. but I'm not sure the liberals would complain. :D

I don't think that's quite the way QM works. it's not that there's some particle that might be here or might be there or might not; supposedly all you have is a wave function. to bastardize an old parable, it's like saying you have a 20% chance of grabbing the elephant's trunk, a 30% chance of grabbing its leg, a 10% chance of grabbing his tail... when in reality the elephant isn't actually there at all, we just think it's there because we're looking for an elephant.

damn, I need a beer.

.
I am not as thunk as some drinkle peep I am!