Thread: Can a human simulate a random generator?

Right, science is dogmatic. Please continue to herpaderp.

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.

Damn... probability theory is bullshit!

Ah well, if it makes you feel better, I misread your post this morning like an idiot when I mistakenly believed you reckoned #2 was more random. Apparently I got distracted by pretty numbers.

Ooh, shiny.

A few people have mentioned all of the biases. But would it be possible for a person to learn about their biases, until a point where they really can simulate a random number generator because they're aware of their biases and know how to avoid them?

I think one of TimB's links mentioned something about how people can act more random with training.

"people can act more random with training"
I can imagine a Monty Python or something on that.

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.

A very good point, though beliefs like the gambler's fallacy also arise out of irrational behaviour, because such people don't typically accept falsification. Faulty pattern recognition plays an important role in creating the belief, fallacious reasoning allows it to persist.

Not to mention a poor understanding of probability.

I can imagine a Monty Python or something on that.

Hell, either the Monty Python team were trained on that, or on mind-altering drugs.

I mean, how random can you get!

Originally Posted by Xei

Right, science is dogmatic. Please continue to herpaderp.

Well, I have no response that can stand up to that flawless logic, do I?
People always resort to ad hominem, pointless statements like that when they are winning.
It's too bad you thought I said that science was dogmatic.

You haven't made any argument. You equated science to 'people telling you what to believe' without any kind of qualification for this ridiculous statement and basically left it there.

No I didn't, silly. You criticized me because I stated a philosophical theory that I have, by stating that I didn't know about quantum physics, which has nothing to do with what I said originally. Then, ironically, you stated that I was confusing philosophy with science.
I stated that I was not impressed with the theories surrounding quantum physics. I didn't know you had such a passion for quantum physics that you would feel you needed to defend it. You cannot disprove what I said, which was that I was not impressed with the theories surrounding quantum physics, so I'm not sure what you're working for. I can only promise that I'm not impressed by them. Scouts honor.

...Oh. I did attempt to point out that there is nothing that I can know for sure. One can tell me about quantum physics, philosophy, or fruit flies all day. I can take it in, but I can never have complete faith in what they say. That would be a weak-minded thing to do.

I'm sorry, but you can't disprove what I stated, which was that I am not impressed with the theories surrounding quantum physics.

The only thing I was responded to was your first sentence... the part of the post that was there before you edited it?

We were talking about random number generators. Random number generators generate numbers that are impossible to predict beforehand. An important part of quantum theory is that there are various things about the universe that are physically impossible to predict beforehand. Thus, you can create a perfect random number generator. You said that that's impossible on the basis of philosophy and I pointed out that it's not an issue of philosophy, it's an issue of science. I'm not interested in whatever you said about philosophy, the conversation was about something physical and thus any 'theorizing' is not relevant.

"I don't believe that a random number generator is possible" = a philosophical theory. Right. If you're going to try to tell me what I said and what my stance is (wtf) and respond to this imaginary person, instead of responding to what I actually said... what's the point in even having this conversation? It's ridiculous, cya.

I responded to your first post, but you just kept talking, and posted again before I was finished. I agree that this is a stupid conversation. You probably shouldn't have started it in the first place. Have fun, kiddo.