Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It doesn't. It is simply non-random, whether you know the specific order or not, and the type of supreme lack of intelligence and supreme lack of logic leading to such stupid ideas as mkohary's, above, is characteristic of the dice complainers crowd.

For that matter, NO number "randomly" generated by any computer is ever truly random, since they are all pre-determined by whatever method the computer is using to "randomly" generate the number.

When you're right, you're right!

[EdwinG]

Technically, it is true that the number generating program does not produce random numbers. However, it simulates randomness extremely well. Statistical analyses of the sequence of numbers generated conclude that the numbers generated are random with a greater than 99.999% probability. This level of probability makes it impossible for the human brain to be able to recognize the patterns in the sequence of numbers.

Now, there is a level of randomness that is built into the system that many people have overlooked. This randomness makes it impossible for an individual to ascertain any pattens. Considering that the number of people playing CC at any one time varies, and the speed at which they draw numbers from the pre-determined sequence varies, the next set of numbers that you (as an individual) will draw from the list is a random distribution about a most probable set. In practical terms, if you delay hitting the attack button by a few milliseconds then the set of numbers that you will receive is different. Because you have no idea how many people are hitting the attack button at the same time that you are, you cannot determine which sequence of numbers you will receive. The number of sets of numbers distributed to CC players between your attacks is a random distribution.

[KLOBBER]

...Considering that the number of people playing CC at any one time varies, and the speed at which they draw numbers from the pre-determined sequence varies, the next set of numbers that you (as an individual) will draw from the list is a random distribution about a most probable set....

There is no evidence that the next set of numbers that will be drawn is a random distribution. Simply claiming that it is, without offering any evidence that it is actually random, does not fly.

In practical terms, if you delay hitting the attack button by a few milliseconds then the set of numbers that you will receive is different. Because you have no idea how many people are hitting the attack button at the same time that you are, you cannot determine which sequence of numbers you will receive.

As has already been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, directly above in this thread, your mere ignorance of the outcome prior to the roll does not make it "random." It only means that it is unpredictable. Mere unpredictability is NOT synonymous with "randomness."

The number of sets of numbers distributed to CC players between your attacks is a random distribution.

There is absolutely nothing "random" about such distribution. The respective definitions of the term, "randomness" and the term "unpredictability" are different, and the only thing that your post has shown is that this distribution is unpredictable. You have not shown, and you have actually offered no evidence whatsoever, that it is "random" in any way.

Certain individuals have displayed the unscientific tendency to automatically assume that anything beyond their immediate range of perception is "random." However, according to the definition of the word, "random," certain specific criteria must be met in order for any system to accurately be termed "random," and personal ignorance of any system's patterns is not one of them. The system you mentioned above does NOT meet the criteria for being accepted as a random system -- it is simply a system whose specifics are beyond your personal power of discernment.

The caveman, if such a creature had ever existed, would have considered anything that he didn't understand to be "random," "luck", "chance," or some other similar nonsense concept. All of those concepts, however, are purely mythological and imaginary, and there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the existence of any of them in the real world. We are not cavemen -- get a grip on reality.

[mkohary]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It wouldn't, it was random at the time it was generated. I didn't mean my statement that way.

To Klobber: rofl, seriously. Go take some remedial math, you're desperately in need of it. I'm done in this thread.

[MrMoody]

There is absolutely nothing "random"...

[KLOBBER]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It wouldn't, it was random at the time it was generated. I didn't mean my statement that way.

...I'm done in this thread.

You were done before you woke up this morning, sparky.

The list was never random, as it was generated exclusively by a series of planned and designed methods that are completely and wholly non-random -- planning and design are by definition diametrically opposed to the concept of "randomness." The list is unpredictable, but that term is not synonymous with "random," the vehement insistence of the less intelligent notwithstanding.

[Thezzaruz]

There is absolutely nothing "random"...

Interesting post, displays the substance of your point quite well IMO.

[Thezzaruz]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It wouldn't, it was random at the time it was generated. I didn't mean my statement that way.

That's a backtrack if I ever saw one.

[KLOBBER]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It wouldn't, it was random at the time it was generated. I didn't mean my statement that way.

That's a backtrack if I ever saw one.

Yes, and a clumsy one at that!

[john9blue]

This thread is still going? Klobber is still twisting the English language however he wants?

Klobber, take a look at all of these posts you've made. Did you have fun doing it? Were your hours of trolling and lying and editing past posts to cover your ass really worth it? You seem to be denying this in your own mind, so I''ll say it for you: you are worthless. Get a life.

[KLOBBER]

No refutation to the points I made, just lame, ineffectual attempts at personal insult.

Typical.

[Timminz]

I'm curious. Is there anything that KLOBBER would agree is random?

[KLOBBER]

It's not about what any CC member may agree to or not -- it is about the facts.

I would turn that question around and ask if you can produce a single example of any system that you can prove is actually "random" (and I mean real systems in the real world, not imaginary ones).

So far, nobody has been able to do so.

The best guess anyone has come up with so far is computer RNG's, which all the sane members in this thread agree are not really random, just unpredictable to most audiences, and unpredictable is most definitely DIFFERENT FROM RANDOM.

You tell me: What non-imaginary system in the real world, if any, is actually "random?" Can you come up with anything at all? If so, I'd honestly love to hear about it, because in all my years (and I am older than the mountains), nobody has ever managed to produce as much as a single one. If not, then it's par for the course.

[john9blue]

You tell me: What non-imaginary system in the real world, if any, is actually "random?" Can you come up with anything at all? If so, I'd honestly love to hear about it, because in all my years (and I am older than the mountains), nobody has ever managed to produce as much as a single one. If not, then it's par for the course.

How about rolling dice? Shuffling cards? Picking lottery numbers? If you say that those aren't random, then it's useless arguing with you because you have a different outlook on the world.

[Timminz]

So you would say that there is nothing in reality that is truly random?

[KLOBBER]

That is what you would say, not what I would say.

Scroll up for what I said in response to your question -- just 2 posts up, dude -- a really easy scroll.

[KLOBBER]

You tell me: What non-imaginary system in the real world, if any, is actually "random?" Can you come up with anything at all? If so, I'd honestly love to hear about it, because in all my years (and I am older than the mountains), nobody has ever managed to produce as much as a single one. If not, then it's par for the course.

How about rolling dice? Shuffling cards? Picking lottery numbers?...

What about them? You merely mentioned them, but you offered no evidence that any of them could be considered in any way "random."

[john9blue]

What about them? You merely mentioned them, but you offered no evidence that any of them could be in any way "random."

If you think that those events are not random, then you have some kind of radical determinist worldview that is completely irrelevant to the question at hand: are the dice streaky?

[KLOBBER]

Proof, please!

[john9blue]

Proof, please!

Okay. With your viewpoint, every event can be predicted. The dice may still retain the mathematical properties of randomness... or not. You are answering a totally different question. That's why I say you're trolling.

[Timminz]

That is what you would say, not what I would say.

I know that. Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. I was interested in finding out if that was what you thought. Seems like a pretty simple question, but I guess I can understand if it's beyond you.

[Thezzaruz]

How about rolling dice? Shuffling cards? Picking lottery numbers? If you say that those aren't random, then it's useless arguing with you because you have a different outlook on the world.

Rolling dice picking lottery numbers through a tombola is in theory a random thing but in reality it is more or less impossible to actually prove that the results are in fact random. Shuffling a deck of cards however is rarely random.



I believe in random as a theoretical concept but I'm not in any way sure that there is a natural event that has been proven to exhibit those properties. However I also very sure that neither of those viewpoints has any relevance at all to CC dice or the question posed about it in this thread. And I'm guessing Klobber would agree with me.

[mkohary]

I believe in random as a theoretical concept but I'm not in any way sure that there is a natural event that has been proven to exhibit those properties.

Ok, I know I said I was done, but you guys are making this way too complicated and it's driving me crazy. My only saving grace is that I'll respond to you, because it seems like there's only one poster in this thread that can't be saved, so why bother responding to him?

There is true randomness everywhere (including in CC); the problem here is that some of you guys are defining "random" far too narrowly. Here it is, put simply:

ran⋅dom
  /ˈrændəm/
–adjective
1.proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2.Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

Mathematical definition: A random variable can be thought of as an unknown value that may change every time it is inspected.

And that's it! It's really just that simple. Claiming that "nothing is truly random", because if we were omnipotent and knew every variable that went into producing a "random" number it would no longer be random (or whatever the pedant viewpoint is), is addressing an entirely different question, mostly a philosophical or metaphysical one. In math, which is what is being practiced here on CC, "random" simply means random - we don't know what the next number will be. Period.

Doesn't matter if the number comes from a list. Doesn't matter if someone else is viewing that list. Doesn't matter if the list is followed sequentially every time (as long as the list is randomly generated, which it is). None of that stuff matters. All that matters is that you don't know what the next number will be. That's it. That's random.

Anyone who isn't satisfied with that common sense definition needs to get a life, seriously. And yes, the CC dice are absolutely, incontrovertibly random, and the same probabilities apply to them that we'd expect from real dice. This has been tested and demonstrated, and if you don't believe it you can install the plugin and see for yourself. That's science. CC even gets their list from random.org, for goodness sake, who uses atmospheric fluctuations of all things to guarantee truly random results. It doesn't get much more random than that!

So, Klobber is 100% wrong, no matter what he says, and I think I trust mathematicians and random.org a bit more than I trust him. That, and the fact that I've actually studied some statistics and probability courses myself, and I have a basic understanding of what I'm talking about, whereas Klobber is simply ignorant (and apparently proud of it). I sure hope no one else is falling for his psuedo-mathematical nonsense.

And THAT is truly my last reply.

[mkohary]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

It wouldn't, it was random at the time it was generated. I didn't mean my statement that way.

That's a backtrack if I ever saw one.

I worded something badly, so sue me. What I meant and what I should have said was, "We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated so the outcome of every dice roll is random." I'm not "backtracking" by clarifying that, I'm admitting my unnecessary qualifier made my point less clear.

[Timminz]

And THAT is truly my last reply.

Best ending to the first of a double-post ever.