Random: Does it exist? [The example of Deep Blue]

In May 1997, an IBM supercomputer known as Deep Blue beat then chess world champion Garry Kasparov, who had once bragged he would never lose to a machine. Kasparov and other chess masters blamed the defeat on a single move made by the IBM machine. At the beginning of the second game the computer made a sacrifice that seemed to hint at its long-term strategy. Kasparov and many others thought the move was too sophisticated for a computer, suggesting there had been some sort of human intervention during the game. “It was an incredibly refined move, of defending while ahead to cut out any hint of countermoves”, grandmaster Yasser Seirawan told Wired in 2001, “and it sent Garry into a tizzy”.

Fifteen years later, one of Big Blue’s designers says the move was the result of a bug in Deep Blue’s software. Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, said that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random. (source)

A random move. Regarded as one of the wisest ever.

But what is “random”? How can such a move, conducted by a programmed algorithm be “random” in any way? Someone programmed this chess program, someone built its circuits. Someone trained it. Someone debugged it. (probably not too successfully) Even though the move seems random, it is actually the deterministic result of many actions designed by conscious beings…

What do you think? Do you BELIEVE in random?

Randomness cannot be designed. But it can be adopted.

Any algorithm used in the attempt to produce a random result is self defeating. So what is often used is a sensor associated with a naturally random occurrence (such as nuclear deterioration) to initiate a random result.

This issue and resolve was known during the time of Big Blue. I suspect the comments “15 years” later are not authentic or genuine.

In a wholly determined universe what can it possibly mean to speak of something – of anything – as random?

Even this thread would seem to be only as it ever could have been.

In other words, going all the way back to whatever brought existence into existence in the first place [whatever that means] Kasparov was set up to lose.

In fact, in a wholly determined universe, even his speculation that Putin is “definitely behind Trump” is only as it ever could have been.

And isn’t that always going to be the part most of us can’t quite wrap our heads around?

If the possibility of prediction becomes truly infinitesimal or less, the event is random. Even though the universe is totally determined, a large percentage of the events within require more than an infinite amount of knowledge concerning the universe’s infinite past. So “natural randomness” can and does occur. But man-made, algorithmic randomness is a different issue.

Well, if what you call “prediction” is a manifestation of the human mind and the human mind is a manifestation of the immutable laws of matter, what does that really mean?

Also, in my view, this is precisely the sort of “intellectual contraption” that is true or not true depending on the assumption that the definition [and the meaning] you give to the words in the argument itself is in sync with the only way a rational mind can understand these things.

But: How exactly would you go about demonstrating that it is true pertaining to, say, this thread itself? How would the reality of “natural randomness” be applicable to it?

Or applicable to Kasparov’s reaction to Putin and Trump?

As always I am trying to determine what “on earth” you mean. How, in other words, is what you argue here applicable to the things that we think and feel and do?

I don’t really know. You are the one who said it.

Yes, but we have all come to understand your “view” (as being a bit pointless).

But to the point, it doesn’t have to be the ONLY way a rational mind can understand these things. All that is required is that it is A way that a rational mind can understand these things.

First, I would wait to see if there is a rational mind interested in this thread.

Is the capacity of a human mind to predict things any less determined than the laws of matter that evolved into the mind itself?

Does “natural randomness” factor into it? If so, how?

Okay, how then might “natural randomness” function here?

Yes but “A way” to understand anything seems always to be in sync with the manner in which you define the words in whatever it is that you are describing.

This thread then is about the extent to which randomness either does or does not play a part in that. This and how we might be able to actually demonstrate it one way or the other.

In other words, only when another mind was deemed rational by you would you be willing to expound on that. But: that mind would only be deemed rational by you if it already shared your own assumptions/premises.

In other words, you are dodging the question.

Okay, first of all, a computer’s random seed, is a long list of numbers, modified by the date and time stamp of the computer clock.

What it means is that the computer made an unintelligent move, say by making an illogical connection between the time at which it made that decision and the right move.

Random is a word that describes an event that cannot be predicted, either due to lack of information or due to lack of pattern in information.

In the case of computers, it’s enough to simply hide the necessary information.

Why do you think that the universe is “wholly determined”?

Just because there are events that can be predicted does not mean that the universe, as a whole, is determined.

How do you know that the universe is determined?

We know that there are patterns, but how do you know there is a universal pattern?

I don’t think that at all. Instead, I note that, as with you, I have no capacity to demonstrate that it either is or is not.

I merely speculate that if mind is matter and matter obeys immutable laws of matter, then this would seem applicable in turn to that which is of most interest to me here: our reaction to Kasparov’s reaction to Putin’s reaction to Trump’s reaction to Putin.

And, sure, why not: Clinton’s reaction to that.

But how do we go about determining if those predictions are not only as they ever could have been given that the minds that make them are matter and matter obeys immutable laws?

Yes, it is fascinating to speculate about these things. And, apparently, our minds are hard wired to do so. But is there a part in all of this where we could have freely chosen not to speculate about it at all? Or a part where our speculations might have come into conflict with what we think now.

And then there’s the part about dasein.

On the other hand, in a wholly determined universe, I am no more able to not espouse it then you and others are able to not deprecate my arguments.

At least in a determined universe, we are all off the hook, right?

You know, whatever that means. :wink:

Absolutely right. If randomness could be designed, then it would be no randomness.

No. A random event is merely one which is statistically less probable than others. All random events can be predicted regardless of probability
Randomness is sometimes confused for spontaneity. But the two are entirely separate from each other. Since spontaneity cannot be predicted

Probability IS the prediction.

But is this “random occurrence” random as well? Or it is just a process which we have not or cannot analyze enough so as to predict its result?

That is all randomness is. “Random” merely means unpredictable (with the current situation).