Thread: Can a human simulate a random generator?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

So is the answer just yes, that people can simulate a random number generator, even considering bias?

Well sure, if we're just talking about the trivial sense in which it is possible for a human and a randomizer to produce the same sequence, then of course. But it seems like the more interesting question is: can humans naturally and consistently simulate a randomizer? And the answer to that is definitely No.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

In the two sequences I posted above, it was (1) that I made up and (2) that was generated, so DuB's program's result was wrong, and Photolysis was right.

Damn... probability theory is bullshit!

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Some of the topics probably are pointless, apart from being entertainment to those who find them interesting. They shouldn't be limited to people who have a lot of knowledge about the subjects (I definitely don't. I've never even heard this topic brought up before). If you don't find pointless philosophical topics interesting, there's no shame in not taking part in them.

I think there are enormous practical implications to the question of whether or not people accurately perceive randomness. When we "see" apparent patterns when in fact there is nothing but the vagaries of chance--we see something when in fact there's nothing--we develop inaccurate mental models of the world around us which systematically lead us astray, with potentially serious consequences. For example, placing bets according to erroneous beliefs such as gambler's fallacy or streak shooting in basketball will cause you to systematically lose money. And when we fail to see the real patterns that are in front of us because they appear random--we see nothing when in fact there's something--we systematically neglect information that we could be using to make more optimal decisions. In short, whether or not humans deal well with randomness is a Big Deal.