Yes, especially if your formula itself evolves with time, then a casual look
at the numbers may indicate randomness, when the order is just a few steps
away.
>In music, if a chaotic, random, unstructured section is called for in the
>piece the players always fall into a "pattern of chaos". There are
>certain qualities and "anti-rhythms" that are common to all sets of
>trained players playing "chaoticly". But this is the result of the
>patterns they have been taught (and are consciously trying to break), not
>the echoes of some universal pattern of music.
Try the music on automatons, then. Use a computer, use a prime number
of beats. Totally chaotic to our EARS, BUT at the same time, you
know there'll be a certain synchronization at every multiple of the
multiplication of the two primes.
Utterly unpredictible though, because we're too used to 4/4.
We don't even need to count beats, to know that "here he adds some more drums".
Beacuse we unconsciously count 4, 8, 16, etc... in the west.
>If you can find order in /any/ random set of digits it says more about the
>pervasiveness of your "order finding" faculties than about the digits
>themselves.
What do you say of these : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ...., n, n+1, etc.. ?
A series of whole numbers,
|N,
or {X0=1; Xi=X(i-1)+1,..}
or the equivalent in C, ....
or the operation + on |N ...
It's all the same. But our interpretation is based on what's there as well.
>The beauty and wonder of our ability to find order in chaos, now that, that
>is truly a remarkable and astounding thing.
The ability comes from the construction, don't you think ?
The astounding thing is the construction gives the ability. The construction
and the ability are alike.
Yash.