Can a random number generator predict the future?

[John Richard]

Just been cooking an omlette and had a thought.

Shouldn't we be able to see some correlations between significant historical events and the numbers kicked up by the worlds lottery balls, if random can be predictive?

 

[Hurkyl]

I think this is an important point, if a "random" number generater predicts the future then it is not a random generatoer because it is stating that the future exists (it has to, to be predictable) and therefore the now number generator has to conform to the already set future and cannot be random.

Assuming this... I conclude that there is no such thing as a random number generator.

Proof:
Suppose I have some device that produces numbers. I can attach it to my computer and program my computer so that each time the device is activated, my computer will display the number it produces one second later.

Each time the device is activated, it accurately predicts what my computer will display one second into the future. And so by your claim, the device is not a random number generator.

 

[_Mayday_]

Assuming this... I conclude that there is no such thing as a random number generator.

Proof:
Suppose I have some device that produces numbers. I can attach it to my computer and program my computer so that each time the device is activated, my computer will display the number it produces one second later.

Each time the device is activated, it accurately predicts what my computer will display one second into the future. And so by your claim, the device is not a random number generator.

BOOM! Headshot. Agreed 100% I guess this links into what I was saying about how something random cannot rely on something that isn't.

 

[DaveC426913]

... they do not actually propose a mechanism by which people effect the output, just that they do somehow...

This should set off very loud warning claxons in your head.

What they are doing is saying the statistical equivalent of

"We can't find any Earth-bound explanation for UFO sightings, therefore the only conclusion is that they are aliens."
"But is there any evidence that points towards aliens?"
"No. we've simply rigorously examined and dismissed every other option we could think of."

thus:
"We can't find any statistical or procedural flaw in our interpretation of the data, therefore the only conclusion is that it really is linked to human events."
"But is there any evidence that points towards human events?"
"No. we've simply rigorously examined and dismissed every statistical misinterpretation we could think of."


Note BTW, that data is not the same as information.The data DOES NOT SAY there is a human connection. In fact, data means NOTHING until it's interpreted. And interpretations are open to challenge.

 

[John Richard]

Assuming this... I conclude that there is no such thing as a random number generator.

Proof:
Suppose I have some device that produces numbers. I can attach it to my computer and program my computer so that each time the device is activated, my computer will display the number it produces one second later.

Each time the device is activated, it accurately predicts what my computer will display one second into the future. And so by your claim, the device is not a random number generator.

There is no prediction taking place here because your device is "instructing" the computer. I tell my son to tidy his room after tea. Then I tell my wife that my son will tidy his room after tea. After tea my son tidies his room. Did I make a prediction. The only difference is that your device is going to be more relible than my chances of getting my son to tidy his room.

Random number generators exist so long as they "do not" predict the future. Prediction requires a break in causal connection between the statement of what will happen and the action in the future. Otherwise we simply have an electronic version of the self fullfilling prophecy.

Consider this published by Michael Clark in Paradoxes from a to z
The Prediction Paradox
If all events are governed by causal laws, then every event can in principal be predicted. But if that is so, it will be possible to falsify predictions about our own actions by opting not to do something that was predicted. Then they wouldn't be correct predictions after all.

The Prediction Paradox is circular, and so is the situation of a random number generator whose results are linked in some manner to the future. If we can determine what event the random number generator refers to, we can prevent that event from happening and reinstate the random nature of the number generator.

 

[DaveC426913]

How can something random be dependant on something else? If it it did rely on something esle it would not be random?

The source of the numbers is ideally producing random numbers - as a starting point. If something is affecting it - something that can affect it when there is no connection that we know of - then we want to know what that new something is, because it would be really interesting.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think this is an important point, if a "random" number generater predicts the future then it is not a random generatoer

Waitaminnit!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

The whole point here is that
1] we start with a process known to produce random numbers
2] we discover that there is an influence by an unknown means that is affecting theses numbers that we know would otherwise be random.

It is this unknown source that we are interested in.

Sure, the numbers aren't random. Granted. The point is, that it is not the generator that's making them non-random, it's some external mechanism.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no prediction taking place here because your device is "instructing" the computer.

How do you tell the difference?

 

[John Richard]

Waitaminnit!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

The whole point here is that
1] we start with a process known to produce random numbers
2] we discover that there is an influence by an unknown means that is affecting theses numbers that we know would otherwise be random.

It is this unknown source that we are interested in.

Sure, the numbers aren't random. Granted. The point is, that it is not the generator that's making them non-random, it's some external mechanism.

You seem to have leapt to the conclusion that random numbers, (which in this case are no longer random), just like the turning of a tarot card, are somehow linked to the future. If that is the case then determinism is our banner! But then we would know the future before it happened, and we would be able to change it and then the prediction was false after all.

There is a strong case in favour of the possibility that if we believe that the numbers predict the future, we become resigned to a particular outcome, (what the numbers predicted), and start subconciously acting in a mnnaer conducive to bringing that outcome about. This is certainly a big feature of para-psychology.

If it is proven that the number generators predict the future, then I would be a lively member of any investigation team but, as yet, I'm not convinced that a proof exists.

How do you tell the difference?

Isn't the difference in the traceable causal links between the number generater and the computer. The wires or blue-tooth and the embedded responce programming in the computer. "When you get an input on this port, remember its value, start a timer, when the timer runs down, output the port value to the screen." The cause and effect chain is traceable.

 

[Hurkyl]

Isn't the difference in the traceable causal links between the number generater and the computer.

So, you assert that the difference between "prediction" and "instruction" is merely a description of our state of knowledge... rather than being something that describes "reality"? And if you weren't aware that I programmed the computer, you would consider it a prediction?

 

[John Richard]

So, you assert that the difference between "prediction" and "instruction" is merely a description of our state of knowledge... rather than being something that describes "reality"? And if you weren't aware that I programmed the computer, you would consider it a prediction?

I am not asserting this at all.

Whether or not someone believes a prediction has taken place does not alter reality accept perhaps subjectively. What I am asserting is that in the case of your example there would be clearly discoverable causal links. If I knew nothing of computers and programming but was a serious investigator, I would eventually know all there was to know about them, and would have discovered how there systems created a causal chain that "mimicked" a prediction. I would then conclude that no prediction took place.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am not asserting this at all.

Whether or not someone believes a prediction has taken place does not alter reality accept perhaps subjectively. What I am asserting is that in the case of your example there would be clearly discoverable causal links. If I knew nothing of computers and programming but was a serious investigator, I would eventually know all there was to know about them, and would have discovered how there systems created a causal chain that "mimicked" a prediction. I would then conclude that no prediction took place.

But the point is that your criterion for distinguishing between "prediction" and "instruction" was not based on qualities intrinsic to the events, but instead based on our ability to deconstruct the correlation into things we've called "causal links".


Incidentally, going back to my original question -- how do you tell the difference between a "causal chain" and a chain where an individual link is just a prediction? Because of this, your explanation seems circular.

 

[DaveC426913]

You seem to have leapt to the conclusion that random numbers, (which in this case are no longer random), just like the turning of a tarot card, are somehow linked to the future.

Well, I haven't leapt to any conclusion, I'm interpreting what the researchers' logic is.

 

[John Richard]

But the point is that your criterion for distinguishing between "prediction" and "instruction" was not based on qualities intrinsic to the events, but instead based on our ability to deconstruct the correlation into things we've called "causal links".


Incidentally, going back to my original question -- how do you tell the difference between a "causal chain" and a chain where an individual link is just a prediction? Because of this, your explanation seems circular.

I think the difference is "intention." The "sooth sayer" does not intend the future, merely wishes to read it. The systems engineer that put the kit together very definitely intended an action to take place later and used tried and tested methods to ensure it took place. He set in motion a chain of cause and effect, in order to achieve the future event. (Granted, he could not 100% garantee it, power cuts etc). There is a link beween the action in the future and the mechanism of prediction that is defineable through intension.

 

[paledim]

if you are talking about a computer generated number it can't predict the future. in essence, nothing can predict the future. a computer generated random number is filtered first through an equation. an equation is limited. therefore, the computer has an "Agenda" already, therefore not making it random. it is of course random to us because we can't compute that fast.

electrons and protons use the path of least resistance, this not being random but the path is random. but how could we ever record that path? there are always factors therefore not making it possible to "predict".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anyone know what method their RNG's use to generate random numbers? And any systematic errors that might show up after running it for so long?

I can't think of any systemic errors if you use a hardware RNG:
http://xkcd.com/221/

 

[OneFish]

Absolutely

One (or more) of an infinite number of random number generators will produce a number that can be interpreted as having predicted a future event. There is no doubt about it! Sadly, your chance of choosing the right random number generator is infinitely small. Tough luck.

 

[Poop-Loops]

So if we took a bunch of these same mechanisms, put them in different places in the world (say different universities in Europe, Asia, Americas, Africa, Australia), then if there is some sort of source doing this, all of them should have similar output, correct?

If you get a lot more 1's when something happens, then all of them should have a sudden flux of 1's on their output.

Seems like a simple experiment.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe that a true random number generator could not predict the future...number,let alone the future numbers...

I think this is a serious lack of understanding of the intent and claims of the experiments.

 

[headova1]

A far better way of predicting the future would be to connect a number generator to a screen. Eventually the number generator would generate the right numbers to project the future as a moving image (As numbers make up the image on a screen). One could see any period of past history and it would also generate the right numbers to see into the universe or the future.
This number generation technique would eventually generate every music performance or play never recorded. I'd love to see into the medieval period and I would try making my theory into a computer programme myself, as having my own satellite which shows King Charles the I being crowned as well as the future would be most exceptional. Yet I don't have the programming knowledge to come up with a number generator which generates every single sequence of numbers up to a certian number of digits (depending what you want to look at) even 3 X 33333333333 going on for billions of digits may generate the information for a moving image of the medieval period which one could look at on a screen. You could test to see if the image is the right one by a television recording which is from a certian perspective and finding patterns , or just finding the data which is the most accurate.


I doubt anyone will understand this! However if you do and have the computing knowledge to make it happen or are at a University or part of the government and are interested in seeing the past or the future or seeing into the universe, please contact me at headova1@hotmail.com

If you wish to mock this I very much doubt you understand!

 

[CRGreathouse]

I had a similar idea as a child: generate all short strings of text, attempting to interpret them as proofs. If it's not a proof, discard it; if it is, then it's automatically trustworthy.

The problem is that I had no grasp of how many short strings there were, let alone how many moving images. A 100 x 100 pixel display (very, very poor...) at 16 colors showing a 1 minute clip (at 10 fps, also poor) has 100 x 100 x 60 x 10 = 6,000,000 pixels in total. Cycling through each possibility (1 minute for each, naturally) would take 2^6000000 minutes.

The galaxy should decay into Hawking radiation or a photon/lepton soup in around 2^350 minutes, so as long as your program runs for at least 2^5999650 times longer than the galaxy, you should see the coronation as desired.

But even if you're that patient, how will you know which coronation is real and which many are clever 'forgeries'?

If you wish to mock this I very much doubt you understand!

I'll bite.

 

[headova1]

I attended a Stephen Hawking lecture in Cambridge. I doubt many people will agree with me and I don't want my suggestion to be popular. The reason for this is popular things are almost always awful, take X factor for example!
One could always take a moving image of a knight and generate a sequence of numbers relating to those numbers and eventually come up with a knight in the medieval period , yet there would be many choices the hard part would be distinguishing the other choices from the real thing I do agree!

I wish someone would invent it soon I want an internet where one can search for anything in the universe from any time period. (I'm not counting parellel universes I imagine they could also be interesting!)

 

[headova1]

I think one could test it by correlating the patterns with a contempary recording and if they prove to be 100% accurate or even 90% accurate it would show something of value. If I hear a chaos theory explanation I will literally laugh my living pants off , yes it's a good theory yet why do people use it as an excuse for things not working!

 

[DavidSnider]

Headova:
Let's just say we wanted to make a database of every American television image possible.

NTSC Resolution: 648*486 = 314928
number of possible colors: 255 * 255 * 255 = 16581375
Number of possible television images: 16581375^314928
Estimated Atoms in the Universe: 10^80

So unless you have a multiverse to use as a hard drive, I don't think this is possible.

 

[headova1]

Presumeably one would only be watching one moving image at a time so you would generate only what you wanted to look at using a searching method.

I see your point however!

 

[headova1]

It's like passing over a magnifying glass over a text in a book, you wouldn't neccessarily use a magnifying glass the size of a book.

your point is a very good one however.

 

[HallsofIvy]

The PEAR research does make 'predictions'. (For example they tell a person to try and make the RNG produce more 0's.)

That's not a prediction (it's not even a 'prediction').

Also i believe that in the Global Consciousness Research, they did make some predictions. For instance they knew that the OJ simpson trial would be on TV and then 'predicted' that there would be a deviation from randomness.

But was there? And that's a prediction about the RPG not one based on its results, which was what the question was about.

However, you probably can't make predictions like 'because the randomness is disturbed, a meteor will hit New York tomorrow'.

 

[DaveC426913]

I doubt anyone will understand this! However if you do and have the computing knowledge to make it happen or are at a University or part of the government and are interested in seeing the past or the future or seeing into the universe,

You don't need computing knowledge. ANY random noise will achieve the exact same thing. Throw a handful of sand on the floor enough times and some of those times it will fall in the image of a set of lottery numbers. Then again, you're no closer to knowing if those numbers will win...

You are misunderstanding statistical probability.

 

[headova1]

Unless one finds patterns which correlate exactly with a recording of the present the more patterns the more accurate it shall be. A set of numbers are the right ones a programme could easily pick the most likely.

 

[mheslep]

I had a similar idea as a child: generate all short strings of text, attempting to interpret them as proofs. If it's not a proof, discard it; if it is, then it's automatically trustworthy.

The problem is that I had no grasp of how many short strings there were, let alone how many moving images. A 100 x 100 pixel display (very, very poor...) at 16 colors showing a 1 minute clip (at 10 fps, also poor) has 100 x 100 x 60 x 10 = 6,000,000 pixels in total. Cycling through each possibility (1 minute for each, naturally) would take 2^6000000 minutes.

The galaxy should decay into Hawking radiation or a photon/lepton soup in around 2^350 minutes, so as long as your program runs for at least 2^5999650 times longer than the galaxy, you should see the coronation as desired.

But even if you're that patient, how will you know which coronation is real and which many are clever 'forgeries'?...

uh oh, careful with that one. Ever read AC Clark's "The Nine Billion Names of God"? I am not ready for the end of the universe quite yet, got plans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God