# Can a computer work anything out?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John Jones, Jul 15, 2009.

1. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

I'll bet you have not a single clue of the real issues here. Go ahead
and bow down to some great authority. Did you usenet guys take some
pills somewhere along the line that makes you so lacking in
independent thought? These names and these authority figures always on

If you are going to challenge what dorayme says, challenge it with a
reasoned objection! Don't mumble a few words in awe of someone or
other. Or throw some half articulate words at it and think you have
actually done something.

Let me see if I can manage to put some definition on your fuzzy
thoughts.

1. It is not adequate to be simply ignorant.

means something like

2. The idea that a random number is a number that pops up before us
without us having a clue as to how it was generated does not capture
an important ingredient of the concept of a random number.

Yes? OK. Fine! What is this important ingredient? It is something
about not being able to predict something, yes?

You seem to miss that dorayme actually tells you what it is. Read it
again. It is that the randomness consists in the observer having no
clue about the generating engine's modus operandi. The observer has no
clue what formula, if any, is being used by the generator. It is that
no matter how many numbers are thrown up by this generator or number
producing source, no clue is gained by any justified reasoning from
the mere appearance of the numbers produced.

The randomness is exhausted by the ignorance in a deep sense so you
are dead wrong and confused and dorayme is quite correct and I agree
with him.

It is important that the numbers do not disclose *a real pattern* that
can be *reasonably* used to anticipate another part of the sequence.
But that is is a given consequence of dorayme's stipulation that the
observer has not a clue about the generator.

Now, if you are thinking that the numbers themselves could give a
clue, you are badly mistaken. It is a simple truth of mathematics that
any given sequence of numbers can belong to any one of an infinite
number of formulae that could have generated them.

If an observer has *not a single clue as to the complexity of the
generator*, not *a single clue*, as dorayme says, then no sequence of
numbers will help at all.

Some of this was explained to Walter in the thread Robot
Consciousness. Go and read the thing.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 24, 2009

2. ### doraymeGuest

Not really, because here might just be *one* number caused to appear.
Previous and future might not come into it in fact. The idea of "not
having a clue how it was in detail generated" captures our intuitive
notion better.

dorayme, Jul 25, 2009

3. ### doraymeGuest

You care about knowing *what* exactly?
You having a nice predictive model sounds to me like you do have a clue
how the numbers are generated. I hope you don't think I mean something
crude by generating to mean simply knowledge of the actual metal or
silicon structure of the generator. I am talking about not having a clue
about the algorithm or rule or formula or operational method of the
generator or any idea at all about its complexity.

A severed water pipe might seem on close examination to emit a definable
pattern of drips and flows from its open end. Presumably it is "not
really random" if the pattern is caused by some set of valves in a tank
some way off that are programmed to open and shut at set times etc?

And, more interestingly, it is "really random", if the non-water
emitting end of the pipe about thirty metres away is found to be simply
open and unconnected to any supply of water, the pipe unbroken along the
way, unable to hold much water itself, yet going on for months gushing
water and stopping gushing, dripping and not dripping. By magic? And you
are imagining in this possible world, that someone might have a
predictive model?

This to me sounds like a fantasy case that commits The Gambler's
Fallacy. You have no predictive model, it is just a flukey case that has
no rhyme or reason. You ought not to bet on it if you really, really
knew that the pipe was a magic pipe.

dorayme, Jul 25, 2009
4. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

My earlier reply to all this seems to have gone missing?

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 25, 2009
5. ### doraymeGuest

....

There are many contexts in which the word "random" occurs. What very
detailed and particular context shall we discuss?

Imagine you are sitting in front of a computer screen. You are told a
number will appear on it if you press Enter but are given no information
as to how it will be generated. Just one number. 5 appears. Is 5 a
random number in this situation?

There is some pressure to say, yes and some pressure to say 'don't
know'. The pressure to say yes is that if your aunt came in with the tea
and asked wtf you were doing staring at a blank screen, you might
reasonably say you were about to see a number on pressing Enter, you had
no idea which number. And if you or your aunt added that it would be a
random number, neither of you might blink or feel this is out of place.

You would have been a fool to bet on 5 or any other number. Against your
background information, there is no number that is privileged or has a
better chance of appearing than any other number. As far as you are
concerned in this situation, the number will be quite random. Any guess
is as good as any other guess.

The pressure to say don't know is that the generator might have a simple
algorithm, albeit unknown to you, that always produces 5. If this were
found to be the case later, we might say that the number was in fact not
random, it was just that your information was lacking. You were
perfectly right that no number had a higher probability of coming on
than any other number.

Probability is usually happily accepted as being in relation to
background knowledge. There is no big puzzle here. But there is a notion
that some people have that *random* is something rather more objective.
If only we could look at the generating machine and see how it works, we
might find that it is not *really* random.

Now this is an interesting sense of random. What would be truly random
in this sense? Usually we would think that if something is "quite
incalculable" this is sufficient basis for randomness. The coin toss is
often thought to be an excellent paradigm of random. But this paradigm
is under severe attack under this idea that there is an objective
randomness. If we knew more about the initial conditions of the toss,
and if we were cleverer and if we had more powerful computers, perhaps
we would be able to change the probability from 1/2 in our favour...

What is being said in this severe objective sense is that no matter what
we found in nature, some result could not have been calculated or
reasoned to. There is no way at all to alter the probability in our
favour. No matter what we find out about the world, if something is
*really random* we will make no progress!

A magic screen that numbers appeared on, uncaused, would be an excellent
context for numbers that appeared to be judged random! In some parts of
physics, it is said that some things are quite unpredictable, as if it
is in the nature of things to be random between a number of states.

Well, I have no deep objection to calling something "really random" if
there is never in fact any basis to calculate between one state and
another no matter how much an observer studies the matter.

At the heart of this judgement of randomness is still the basic idea
that we have no clue to reason to one state rather than another. It is
just that in *real randomness*, the context includes the idea that the
situation of having no clue is endless and bottomless.

Under this severe way of looking at things, perhaps nearly everything we
casually say is random is merely pseudo-random.

Patricia is perfectly right. Take any set of numbers, no matter what
they are, they could continue in any of an infinite number of ways and
there would be a rule to cover each way.

Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc

And each way of continuing could be described by a mathematical formula:

1 2 3 4 5 6 would be covered by N(n)=n where N is the number at the nth
place in the series. Under this rule, 7 would be the next number.

If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
first though! <g>

dorayme, Jul 25, 2009
6. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

Like hell it has. Trying to make out like Simple Simon?
Philosophy by dictionary anyone?

Depending on chance indeed! Poker depends on chance but it is not
random.
Is not a significant test of what? Trouble with expressing things when
they are not in a dictionary or in the words of some famous writer?
What exactly is nonsense? The idea that many people have had that if
one knew all the relevant laws, all the initial conditions and all the
forces one might be able to better predict the result? Notice the*
if*?

And what do you think is *the argument*? Perhaps a mere *point* is
No, it is discussing quite an opposite context, one in which some
things *cannot* be determined because of the very *not fully
deterministic* nature of some things.

No progress in being able to predict which state out of a number that
are truly equally probable against no matter what information we
collect before the event
You would fail hopelessly for the same reason that the gambler of The
Gambler's Fallacy fails. If it was a magic screen, you would be a
complete dope to apply statistical patterns. They would lead you
astray because they would have no grip in this situation. In our
actual wold, you see, we have some idea of the complexity of things.
If we did not, we would not be able to conduct science.

What I see is a dope of a usenet guy into pissing competitions. Learns
nothing, quotes, looks up dictionaries, misunderstands pretty well
everything. And someone who is beyond improvement, self correction or
any correction, a complete inability to grow or change or deepen.
Proud of those characteristics, eh? What a silly man you are.
Why on earth you think it is *an argument for randomness* I have no
idea?
You name the figure and you abide by the sequences mentioned by
dorayme, not things you get to make up that have nothing to do with
the matter.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 25, 2009
7. ### ZinnicGuest

Snip, snip, snip.

Jonn, this guy Dorayme is playing a game with you. He double-teams
with his invented Patricia. When he cannot hold up his end in a
discussion he calls on Patricia for support and posts under her name
to belittle and insult you. He is a put-down artist, totally
lacking integrity.
Zinnic

Zinnic, Jul 25, 2009
8. ### doraymeGuest

Is he not playing ball? <g> It is hard for him. He is confused by a
number of things and in these cases one cannot deal easily and
rationally with such a person. We will never be able to agree on the
terms of the bet with him because he will never understand the claim I

The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.

In plain English?

If you were watching a screen on which a few numbers came up, first one
and then another and a new one was about to come on, and you literally
guess about the next number would be as good as any other guess. And
there are no limits on the supply of candidates!

And to each possible continuation there would be at least one rule that
would cover the sequence to that point.

In plainer still?

If you were watching a screen on which one number came up and you
engine, 15,215,987 would be as good a guess for the second number as 2.

dorayme, Jul 26, 2009
9. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

I nearly said, don't be a fool Zinnic! How silly of me to even
bother.

Both dorayme and I are discussing an interesting matter here. No one
is tricking anyone. In the posts from dorayme and myself, discount a
few jokey and absurd personal insults, there is more actual philosophy
and thinking in just these exchanges than you would ever manage in a

It has become a little disjointed because Stafford, someone who
obviously has no philosophical background is overly concerned with
issues that are *not fundamental*. He is concerned with tiny and
specific issues about random distribution and cannot see that these
can be analysed from the fundamentals that dorayme has kindly laid
down from his pure insightful basics.

Anyway, there is no point in going into these things with you. You act
like a backwater toothless hillbilly and seem to have as a main
activity following two fine upstanding usenet characters like dorayme
and me around merely on some sort of crusade to smear and belittle.
Not up to the job of actual philosophy?

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 26, 2009
10. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. You never, I
notice, ever say what *you* understand by dorayme's claim, in *your
own words*. You just quote him and say stuff like "Proof please" and
this tells me that you are not understanding what is being said. If
you did, you would be unlikely to be asking for a proof. It is not
anything that is even controversial.
There you go again. dorayme is describing a particular example of
numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
asserted.

Do some work John and do not hang on other people's words. Show what
you imagine is the case that is being presented to you. dorayme gave
you plainer and plainer versions and still you are no closer to
understanding?
What on earth have your sequences got to do with the ones we are
talking about here? Go back and understand what is being put to you
and we will come back to your sequences. Deal with the ones put to you
first.
It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another. All
other uses of random can be derived from this. he has conceded under
some concerns from you and Matt that there is a sense of objective
randomness. And that this latter is to be understood in terms of there
never ever being any grounds no matter how much anyone will or could
ever know about the world for preferring one punt over another in a
choice two (or more) possible outcomes of a random event.
And are you so generally blinkered that you cannot understand that the
word "random" is not confined to just one sort of case? You are
misunderstanding the case put to you. You are obsessed with a
*different case*. I can see that you will not be distracted from this
obsession and so I better deal with it right now. You are concerned
with some superficial case whereby if a million numbers came up
confirming some interpretation, that for you would be sufficient to
brand it as not random.

You watch the screen and 1 comes up, repeatedly for hours on end. The
formula, according to the notation of dorayme would be a(n)=1. For
you, this probably is a case of a non-random distribution. For me and
dorayme, it is nothing of the sort! And it is not for any
misunderstanding of mathematics, it is for the good reason that no
amount of cases strengthens the case for a real pattern if you
literally take seriously that you have no idea at all of the
complexity of the generating machinery. You have never appreciated
this wider and deeper point. It is probably not something that your
mind can stretch to. You are stuck in the shadows and cannot see the
heart of things. A trillion 1s in a row is not a wit less random a
distribution than any other sequence in theory.

The trouble is you are not thinking at this fundamental level of
philosophical theory, you are boxing on the surface of real life. In
real life on earth, if we saw so many 1s, this would be evidence that
the distribution was not random. But this is because we would see this
as evidence for a certain simplicity in the generating engine.

The whole of science works on the basis of positing simplicity. But
the case put to you by dorayme, to show the deep structure of
randomness, is that we have no idea of the complexity of the
generating machinery. It was a point that dorayme put to Walter in
Robot Consciousness and even Walter, who has a better feel for
philosophy than you, did not quite appreciate at the time, he kept
falling into the trap of re-introducing a knowledge where the case
called for express exclusion of this knowledge. Look at the discussion
on The Gambler's Fallacy and bare dispositions.
You are showing your misunderstanding of the case put to you by this
remark. It is as good a sample as fifty million numbers. In purely
mathematical terms, in the sea of infinity, fifty million 1s in a row
is no more privileged than any other fifty million numbers in a row.
It is almost laughable watching your self deceptions! Where else but
usenet can one see such incredible cases as this. You are assuming
ignorance on the basis of your own. I know pretty well what you are
ignorant in and what you are not ignorant in. No, you are not a
complete fool (like say turtoni or zinnic), But, let's face it,
philosophy is not your natural talent, John. Be more humble and you
might be able to pick up a teensy weeny bit.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 26, 2009
11. ### ZinnicGuest

first step in your rehabilitation. These insults are egregious
denials of genuine philosophical discussion. The mainstay of
productive philosophical exchanges is a sympathetic reading of
other's views. Obviously you do not subscibe to this. Your contempt
does nor contribute to, but destroys philosophy.

Your claim that you and your proxy engage in actual philosophy is an
'absurd' insult to philosophers past and present. Your infantile
philosophical position is that, because everything is not yet known,
then all views expressed by others may be invalid. Of course they may
be , but then they may not be invalid.. That you select yourself as
the sole arbiter is not philosophy, it is arrogance.
This along with your claims that improbabilities may be logically
possible, is the superficial extent of your philosophic insight. How
shallow! One expects so much more of deep thinkers.
Dorayme, your seem obsessed with those 'backwater toothless hill
billies'. Do you sexually compensate for your inclinations by
imagining situations in which you get fresh with an imagined female
Patricia (remember, you said that she would hit you with her
handbag). Do you not realise that you are playing a "crying game"
when you imagine reaching for her genitals? That is, you are
actually reaching for and abusing your own penile member.
Zinnic

Zinnic, Jul 26, 2009
12. ### turtoniGuest

Well said!
the "heh heh heh" is my version of Dr Evil in the Austin Powers film
series.

turtoni, Jul 26, 2009
13. ### turtoniGuest

Dorayme, your seem obsessed  with those 'backwater toothless hill
I seem to remember Pat stating it wasn't female sometime ago.
But perhaps if Pat is female, men will bring the avatar free loot.!

turtoni, Jul 26, 2009
14. ### doraymeGuest

Well, yes, this is correct. It just needs to be understood to be
assented to.

For example, suppose the screen showed one number after the other, we
were to guess what might be next at each stage. But we had no idea at
all about the complexity of the program of the machine that was
producing the numbers or even if anything was producing the numbers, it
being perhaps a magical happening. What could we say was a more likely
number than any other after the very first number (n=1), 1? There is
simply no number that is more likely than any other number for second
place.

Here are some formulae to cover a few of the possibilities. Most folk
with elementary maths skills should be able to see that these can be
added to at will and they will all start a series with 1 and diverge
from there on. The principle is not different if we had more starting
place numbers to be constant across possible series, it is just that the
formulae would be more complex.

a(n)=n
a(n)=2n-1
a(n)=3n-2
a(n)=4n-3
a(n)=5n-4
a(n)=6n-5
a(n)=7n-6
a(n)=8n-7
a(n)=9n-8

Each of these formulae generate a different series, but all of them

It is easy enough to devise formulae types (you should notice a pattern
above) to cover a larger number of places than just where n=1. But not
so easy when the number of places needing covering becomes large. But
ease is not the issue here.

dorayme, Jul 26, 2009
15. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

Yes, it would help you if you showed understanding. The things you
say make it clear you are confused about the lines of argument and
what is essentially relevant and what is not.

dorayme was asked to say what random is. He said, in effect, that at
the heart of it was the idea that reason had nothing to grip on to
judge one outcome from another outcome. You did not understand this.

The idea of random in all situations, including the idea of a random
series of numbers can be derived from this simple idea.
You mean, you do not understand these simple sentences.
It was proposed that talk of random is appropriate in situations where
there is nothing to judge one outcome from another, sometimes some
uses allow there simply to be ignorance, other uses have been conceded
to be deeper and include how the world has nothing that could ever be
used to decide the issue.
This is a confusion. If one knows how the generator is generating the
numbers, one ipso facto has a basis on which to rule against random.

Is this correct or not? Would you want to say that a million 1s would
be an argument for non-randomness even if you assumed there was no
*other* information (besides the numbers) to be going on?

Simple enough question? It is either yes or no for you. If you do not
understand the question, this shows to me that you are missing an
important feature of what dorayme has been teaching us. dorayme takes
The Gambler's Fallacy very seriously you see. Maybe he had a searing
experience in a casino once and has never forgotten it. Men are so
silly with gambling!
Dear o dear. Absolutely nothing to you eh? Read the explanation of the
symbols again. It is a formula andt it predicts the numbers at the nth
place in the series of numbers being presented. The sense of
prediction is quite common in many world languages.
OK. What is the distribution in the situation we have been dealing
with, since you are so intensely interested in *distribution*. You
are watching the screen. Youhave no knowledge at all of the
complexityof the generator and a million 1s come up. What is the
distribution? WTF do you want to make of this distribution. Why do I
get the feeling that I man not going to get the least sensible answer
from you?
I went to the doctor the other day.
"What is the matter?", she asked.
"Doctor, I talk to myself"
"That's OK, plenty of people talk to themselves"
"But Doctor, I talk to myself a lot"
"Ah! But Doctor, you don't understand how boring I am!"
It is not a fallacy at all. If any rational person saw a screen that
printed nothing but 1s for days on end, he would probably justified in
supposing that a(next) would be a 1. You seem quite lost in all of
this? dorayme and I are the ones saying that apparent patterns might
not be real patterns. And when either of us make points like this, you
always shake your head in denial. Patterns we seem to see are the
very heart of science. Yes, we often go wrong. So what?

This is what I have been saying and you have not been seeming to
appreciate it. I have been putting the point constantly that mere
sequence of numbers, in themselves, are no evidence of non-random.
They only become evidence when we apply assumptions of simplicity to
the world. Instead of studying psychology and astrology, I recommend
you take a good course in The Philosophy of Science.
The argument is all about what story the numbers, just by themselves,
tell. And they tell nothing much at all in themselves. You are looking
in the wrong place for the basis of randomness.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 26, 2009
16. ### Jim BurnsGuest

dorayme wrote:
[...]
Actually, it's still pretty easy, conceptually. True, the
required calculations grow pretty quickly.

If we're given n data points, (y_1, ..., y_n), there is
exactly one polynomial of order (n-1) that runs through
the points {(y_1, 1), (y_2, 2), ..., (y_n, n)}. (See ***
for calculating the polynomial.)

If you want to find a polynomial that predicts that
the next data point after measuring (y_1, ..., y_n)
will be Y_(n+1), where Y_(n+1) can be anything at all,
just calculate the order n polynomial that runs through
the points
{(y_1, 1), (y_2, 2), ..., (y_n, n), (Y_(n+1), n+1)}.

If you want a polynomial that "predicts" your name in
ASCII after a thousand random-looking data points, tack
your name in ASCII onto the end of those specific random-
looking data points and crunch the numbers again.

***
Suppose n = 4. Find the coefficients (a_0, ..., a_3)
that give us a polynomial P(n), where
P(n) = a_0 + a_1*n + a_2*n^2 + a_3*n^3
which evaluates to the specified data points,
P(1) = a_0 + a_1*1 + a_2*1^2 + a_3*1^3 = y_1
P(2) = a_0 + a_1*2 + a_2*2^2 + a_3*2^3 = y_2
P(3) = a_0 + a_1*3 + a_2*3^2 + a_3*3^3 = y_3
P(4) = a_0 + a_1*4 + a_2*1^4 + a_3*4^3 = y_4

Notice that, by treating the coefficients a_i as the
variables, we have four linear equations in four
unknowns. In matrix form,
[ 1 1 1 1 ][ a_0 ] [ y_1 ]
[ 1 2 4 8 ][ a_1 ] = [ y_2 ]
[ 1 3 9 27 ][ a_2 ] [ y_3 ]
[ 1 4 16 64 ][ a_3 ] [ y_4 ]

It happens that every square matrix B = [ b_ij ]
with b_ij = i^(j-1) is invertible, so we have
[ a_0 ] [ 1 1 1 1 ]^-1[ y_1 ]
[ a_1 ] = [ 1 2 4 8 ] [ y_2 ]
[ a_2 ] [ 1 3 9 27 ] [ y_3 ]
[ a_3 ] [ 1 4 16 64 ] [ y_4 ]

Done.

Jim Burns

Jim Burns, Jul 26, 2009
17. ### doraymeGuest

Yes, indeed, conceptually dead easy. It is even easy to give an
unmathematical person many rules that start a series with 1 2 3 4 5 ...
but continue in quite different ways:

Make the first five places as if counting from 1 and then keep repeating
the count for each set of five place: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
3 4 5...

Make the first five places as if counting from 1 and then reverse count
these same numbers for the next five places, alternating both
procedures: 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 4 3 2 1...

It should be obvious that there is no limit to the series that begin
with any numbers continuing in "a different way". For those with a
*philosophical* interest in this matter, I put the last phrase in quotes
because, in fact, if any rule *at all* is being followed (eg. a person
or program is really using it to generate the numbers), it does not
matter what the 6th and subsequent places in the series are: the numbers
are following in *the same way*. The *same way* refers to the actual
rule being followed, not some other imagined rule that would generate
the first five places.

Thanks for going to the trouble, Jim.

dorayme, Jul 27, 2009
18. ### doraymeGuest

saying, to be understood in terms of there being nothing we can reason
from to determine it.
My phrase had a specific meaning in the context. I make a distinction
between being random and appearing to be random for the purists.
Appearing to be random is almost self explanatory. A person looks at a
series of events and can see no causal engine to explain it. He says it
is random. If it turns out that there is a causal engine, and the
pattern is complex (unseen by the man), we might reasonable say it is
not random at all. If it turns out or it is a fact that there is no
causal engine to explain it, then it is more than merely appearing to be
random. It is really random!

None of this is to be confused with a man thinking something is not
random because he thinks he sees the pattern. He could simply be wrong.
He would soon find out by filing to predict something in the context.

Now, you might like to conjure up the idea of having a hypothesis that
is perfectly successfully predictive but has nothing really to do with
how the events are generated. But if you could actually produce such a
case, I would believe in magic!
I don't really "assert magic".
There is no problem about there being unknown non random. That is what
science is for, to make it known!

I don't understand the idea of non-natural being predictable, frankly.
And the predictable I am interested in is not "lucky guessing"

dorayme, Jul 27, 2009
19. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

*What* would give this series,?

In a series of numbers there is an *order* that is quite distinct from
the particular residents of the places in the order.

Thus:

_ _ _ _ _ ...

has places yet to be filled, the dots means there are further places
without end.

Each dash represents a unique place. Take the first dash, it is in the
first place in the series or sequence. For that place, n=1. For the
second dash, n=2 and so it goes on.

We could fill these spots with anything at all:

* \$ # @ %

would be one way.

When n=3, the thing in the 3rd spot in the series is @

...
You are confusing what is being said to be random. There is nothing
random about an engine programmed to follow a formula. No one has
suggested this. Random comes into the situation when there is no
program that is generating the series or at least not a program that
gives us a grip on how it will spit numbers out.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 27, 2009
20. ### Patricia AldorazGuest

Oh don't be like that! Be a sport! Please accept what I say! I do not
reinterpret dorayme. I *explain* his teachings to selected Google
Groupers. You should feel honoured.
Surely not *simply*? You are hurting my feelings.
The idea of dorayme when he answered a question put to him. You have
forgotten it? It is the idea we have been discussing and which you
have seemed to mock and oppose and misunderstand on a daily basis, the
idea that the idea of randomness can be understood in terms of there
being nothing to go on to determine an outcome.
He seems happy to leave me to deal with selected crazies, most of whom
are Google Groupers. I don't get paid for this you know and while he
has not said in so many words how much he appreciates my efforts, he
has not said anything against it.
There is no nature of random beyond what dorayme teaches. It is simply
about there being nothing from which to reason to beyond 50% chance.
If a series of numbers is random, this means that nothing in the world
or in the preceding numbers can help any being at all determine
whether the next number will be 43 or some other number. In the screen
experiment we have been considering, in the absence of any knowledge,
43 has as much chance of coming up in sixth place as any other number
we might contemplate.

But being like I am so innumerate, I guess you can't believe me.
This is a simple error if you take seriously the idea of having no
knowledge of the complexity of the generating engine.

You seem to have learned nothing from dorayme's teachings. It is *a
conceptual mistake* to suppose that a random event can be caused to
happen. That is the fundamental nature of random, the absence of
intelligible cause.

Best of luck in this.

Patricia Aldoraz, Jul 27, 2009