How random is a shuffled deck?

[daryn]

do you mean to say that either things are random, or there is some cause and effect?

i'll think about it.

[MatrixMunki]

what about Gauss who proved that a system could not be complete and some other [censored]?

[Yardbird]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think I just subjected you to an explication of a sequence of underlying thought of an utterly routine sort, but of the type usually kept to the thinker for fear of lulling the reader or listener into a deep, deep sleep.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="orange"> [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] L O L ! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] </font> And such was the nature of my sense of humour as an adolescent! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] People wouldn't understand what I was laughing about, and would ask why, the first time. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Of course, sometimes that was in the middle of English-Lit class while we were reading Shakespearean comedies (go figure). [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Funnily enough, it would seem that boring our readership is exactly what we're up to in this tangential thread... OTOH... it seems to be attracting or revealing who the geeks in this forum are.

... and the geeks shall inherit the earth (after all the jocks kill or maim each other) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Yardbird]

[ QUOTE ]
what about Gauss who proved that a system could not be complete and some other [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surmise that he was discussing microcosms, and on that point I would have to agree that humans are incapable of constructing closed-ecosystems as well.

Surely, The Universe, by definition, is a closed system (given that it is everything), just as all black cats are, by definition, black (while how they are percieved is an entirely other matter). [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
what about Gauss who proved that a system could not be complete and some other [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that you are referring to Godel's theorem that statements exist within a system of logic that can be neither proven nor disproven within the system, it would make perfect sense that a statement about what the future would be could exist encoded within ourselves or our interaction, and not be observable or provable within our world. but that would require that human interaction and/or dna encoding be equivilent to a formal system of logic, which doesn't make much sense.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
... and the geeks shall inherit the earth (after all the jocks kill or maim each other)

[/ QUOTE ]

now-a-days, the geeks and jocks are becomming one and the same in many walks of life. mine tends to be one. i fit that "geek" profile as well as the "jock" profile as do 4 of the 15 members of my hockey team. not to mention the actuary with whom i run and discuss abstract concepts fairly regularly...and its funny to watch the faces of those on the machines near our treadmills strain with a vain attempt to understand what we're discussing.

on your analysis of randomness: you clearly posses the exact background for which john has given you credit. closed systems cannot be random. all the factors are there all the time from inception and therefore should, theoretically, be able to be acounted for by some omniscient being. should i be this being, i would play marbles with the planets and screw with the earth cosmologists' heads. that would be hilarious. but thats just me.

similarly, computers cannot creat random numbers.

but here is my philosophy: imagine a scale from 0 to 100 where 0 means total randomness and 100 means total determinism. for certain things in life, breathing, eating, etc. we, the human existance, just do not care one way or the other whether our actions are random or are part of a deterministic sequence of events, the source of which can be traced back to the beginning of time. we just act, and eat, and do whatever.

but there are some who truly care and ponder the difference between the two. apparantly, youa re one of them. but to what degree would you allow that randomness exists? for instance, lets say you needed 1,000,000,000 bits of knowledge about the universe to move through time back and forth with 100% accuracy. what would 999,999,999 bits do for you? would you be any less likely to trust your results being such a small percent away from true determinism? clearly you'd answer yes and cite the degree to which your certainty has declined. but for poker, the correlation factor (thats what i call it and its the degree to which a shuffling sequence is random i.e. how it correlates to the previous shuffle where 0 is random and the large the number the more the two decks are related) doesn't NEED to be 0. it just needs to satisfy some minimal requirement. there are critical points rather than a streaming sequence of declines in accuracy like in the universal information analogy: if you had 500,000,000 bits you'd be 1/2 there and so on, its a direct correlation between accuracy and knowledge. shuffles don't need to be like that. you can be mostly there and its sufficient and the gains you get from being totaly there won't necessarily align with the costs in time etc. of getting there.

PS- as the jocks and geeks merge, what will you do with your newfound isolation [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

i think the Jeeks and Gocks will overcome!
-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Cause and effect pretty much eliminates any chance of randomness in the true sense of the word doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

but to what degree or extent does it hinder or accentuate our daily existance? i believe there may be some grey area as i just wrote in my post. having less knowledge of the system...maybe not knowing exactly where 1 or 10 atoms are or were won't degrade your accurate assesment as an omniscient being to a degree where you are no longer working with the fundamental movements of the universe...

interesting though
-Barron