(April 7, 2016 at 10:14 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I believe there is no such thing as randomness.
If we are to analyse things to the nth degree, we would be able to accurately predict the behaviour of all things.
I don't believe nature has a built in RNG.
How granular do we want or can go?
Predict genetic mutations, angle and direction of blades of grass growing in a field?
On a smaller scale, smacking a rack of billiard balls? It's the butterfly effect everywhere.
One bees dick off and the ball at the end of the chain of collisions will just miss going into the hole by another bees dick!
Can someone tell me if we can predict the outcome of a complex RNG?
Surely we can? We programmed the bastard?
Disclaimer: no bees genitals were harmed in the making of this post!
Random number generators aren't random. Any time an algorithm is used, much of the randomness is removed. I think that there are newer methods which are better than what I used to program computers for Monte Carlo analysis of EM propagation errors on near field antenna ranges, back in y2k. I left that gig in y2k and haven't written a line of FORTRAN since.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
