Philosophy of randomness

[dschingis27]

But I don't how if anything regarding the order of the outcomes becomes any more predictable? I would guess not.

Actually there are precise mathematical theorems exactly about which degree and mode of aggregation will give you which degree of reliability in the aggregated result. This is in large part what mathematical statistics is about.

The thing with mathematical theorems is that they rely on assumptions. As long as we are in the gambling, boardgaming, card drawing world, mathematical assumptions can usually be checked precisely (i.e. they are true or not). As soon as you start real world statistics, you often have to make educated guesses if certain assumptions are met or if slight deviations from assumptions are still ok enough.

[zoomboom]

But I don't how if anything regarding the order of the outcomes becomes any more predictable? I would guess not.

Actually there are precise mathematical theorems exactly about which degree and mode of aggregation will give you which degree of reliability in the aggregated result. This is in large part what mathematical statistics is about.

Not sure if what you're talking about is what I was talking about- I was wondering if knowing the outcomes of a large # of dice rolls, for example, helps to predict anything at all about future outcomes. Perhaps it can, with a 'smart' enough algorithm, or AI, or something... depending on the method of randomness (just how random it is).

[dschingis27]

I was wondering if knowing the outcomes of a large # of dice rolls, for example, helps to predict anything at all about future outcomes. Perhaps it can, with a 'smart' enough algorithm, or AI, or something... depending on the method of randomness (just how random it is).

Uhh now (I think) I get it. Totally different topic. Well, that is an interesting thought, could a smart enough AI find a pattern in pseudo-random numbers and predict future pseudo-random numbers by that system? Potentially that could be a new test for randomness in RNG.

[RobertBr]

Not sure if what you're talking about is what I was talking about- I was wondering if knowing the outcomes of a large # of dice rolls, for example, helps to predict anything at all about future outcomes. Perhaps it can, with a 'smart' enough algorithm, or AI, or something... depending on the method of randomness (just how random it is).

What your brain is doing is called the gambler's fallacy. There are always patterns in random sequences, what makes them random is that they are irrelevant to future events.

[Jellby]

With pseudo-RNG, there is always an underlying formula and "hidden variables" that determine every outcome. IF (and this is a very big IF) you could know the formula and all hidden variables, then you could know all future numbers. It is in theory possible that a smart (or lucky) AI could eventually find such data, but this is very unlikely given that, for example, for the case of dice rolls in BGA:

1. You only have access to the final 1-6 number, not to all the decimal figures of the actual random number generated.
2. There is absolutely no guarantee that two consecutive dice rolls in a game correspond to two consecutive generated numbers. All the other games in the server could potentially be using the same stream, so you'd need access to all generated numbers in the server (and sorted).

Now, for the more philosophical question about randomness, and not just pseudo-RNG in BGA, that is one of the conundrums of quantum mechanics. Is there actually a "formula" and a set of "hidden variables" behind apparently random events? Or are they purely random?

[poserLX]

Not sure if what you're talking about is what I was talking about- I was wondering if knowing the outcomes of a large # of dice rolls, for example, helps to predict anything at all about future outcomes. Perhaps it can, with a 'smart' enough algorithm, or AI, or something... depending on the method of randomness (just how random it is).

What your brain is doing is called the gambler's fallacy. There are always patterns in random sequences, what makes them random is that they are irrelevant to future events.

This.

I think this is especially relevant in board games because we expect games to be fair. Randomness may be designed to be fair, but that doesn’t guarantee any particular outcome. True randomness is free from bias toward any given player or outcome, but it will inevitably appear to favour one player or outcome. And next week it will appear to favour others.

[fiscused]

I figure the threads claiming the system is rigged against them are probably jokes. People seeing what replies they can get and how many people take them seriously. I mean, I have no stats to prove this, but I can't believe that many people, especially people who play games, can be that clueless.

[Jellby]

"Two Things Are Infinite: the Universe and Human Stupidity" https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/0 ... -einstein/

[Romain672]

I figure the threads claiming the system is rigged against them are probably jokes. People seeing what replies they can get and how many people take them seriously. I mean, I have no stats to prove this, but I can't believe that many people, especially people who play games, can be that clueless.

Just look at cognitive biais ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias ).
If you manage (like me ) to see situations where there could be one, that can make you take better decisions.