9 16 3 51 42
Hey there predictable patrons, Jules here for DNews.
Randomness is… kind of an elusive concept.
In theory, we can broadly define something as random if it is unpredictable.
Pulling a red or blue marble out of a jar is considered 'random' since there’s no
practical way to predict which of the two you’ll pull out.
A roll of the dice is also seemingly random, as most people can only guess at the result.
And that’s kind of important.
Randomness matters when it comes to gambling, scientific experiments, military drafts, cryptography,
even art!
As a society, we use randomness as a method of 'fairness' or impartiality.
The idea is that if something random cannot be predicted, then it cannot be usefully influenced
in one direction or another, and it’s just up to the 'universe' to make a choice for
us.
At least, that’s the theory.
But we’re talking about 'practical randomness', which can range from things that are just
hard to measure in advance -- like a coin flip -- to things that are almost impossible
to measure -- like which direction a leaf might float as it falls from a tree.
To predict that, you would need to know the weight of the leaf, the airflow around it,
temperature, tree height, and basically a million other factors.
The more factors involved, the harder it is to take them all into account.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t EVENTUALLY make a prediction.
In 2012, researchers from Poland and Scotland determined a way to predict die rolls.
They took into account air viscosity, table friction, and the acceleration of gravity,
ran that through a series of complex equations, and compared the result to high speed camera
footage of real dice.
Using this, they managed to develop a system to predict what number the die would most
likely land on.
So, as of 2012, dice are not necessarily random anymore -- at least, if you’re a scientist.
This 'predicting randomness' issue is kind of a huge problem.
The better math, science, and technology are at assessing prior conditions, the better
they’ll be at making random things predictable.
And in fact, much of what is purported to be random, is ACTUALLY 'pseudo-random'.
Here’s an example: if you go online, you can quickly find a 'random number generator',
and for most purposes, that’s fine.
But almost by definition, a computer cannot provide 'random' results.
A calculation with all the same original parts must deliver the same result every time, and
that’s all a computer is -- an ultra-powerful number cruncher.
So how do computers produce random numbers?
There are a few ways, and most involve using an initial number based on some external variable
that the computer cannot itself generate.
This can be anything, like measuring how long you hold down a letter on your keyboard divided
by the current temperature at the top of Mount Everest.
Another theoretical source is to measure the radioactive decay of an atom, which at that
level, according to quantum theory, is impossible to predict, and is thus 'random'.
But the same problem exists as with the die rolls.
Right now, we are not able to predict atomic decay, or the length of time you might hold
down the G key while Mount Everest is 14 degrees Fahrenheit.
But that doesn’t mean we never will.
And since those random numbers are STILL predicated on a fixed value, their randomness is suspect.1For
cryptologists, this is an enormous problem.
To try and solve it, Intel developed RdRand on their processing chips.
These read a source of unpredictable entropy on the processor itself, which is converted
into a number to be used as a seed for developing a random number by running it through complex
algorithms.
But the system was blacklisted by some operating system developers on the basis that it may
contain a backdoor for the NSA should Intel give them access.
Some have even taken to running RdRand’s output through their own algorithms to prevent
the possibility of a third party being able to decrypt the RdRand output and break its
randomness.
Even when we seemingly have a source of randomness, it can theoretically be compromised.
As we get better and better at measuring the world around us, true randomness becomes more
and more elusive.
If one day we’re able to reliably measure the quantum output of atoms, then we might
as well give up on gambling, and stop using computer encryption.
But for most, pseudo-randomness is enough.
There are some things we can predict however, such as the most likely outcomes of a game,
a social situation, or even an election.
Check out our video all about that, here.
So what do you think?
Can anything really be random?
Let us know in the comments, don’t forget to like this video, and subscribe for a new
episode of DNews every day of the week.