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.
