Here, I think, people confuse different kinds of randomness, rather than misunderstand randomness, per se. The ‘randomness’ of an occurrence is based on the statistical probability that an event will or (or will not) occur. In the case of a coin toss, only one of two possible outcomes can occur for each flip (assuming the coin is not, by accidental or intentional design, ‘biased’ to land one way rather than the other).

The first statistical probability is; prior to recording the results of a single coin flip, what is the chance a coin will land ‘the same side up’ 101 times in a row during the first 101 coin flips, and not 101 times in a row at some point during a series of 101 + n (number of) successive coin flips?

I have absolutely no idea how to calculate the probability a coin flip will result in a ‘same way landing’ 101 times in a row during its first 101 flips, but it isn’t 50/50.

The second probability is; having flipped a coin 100 times and knowing the coin landed the same side up 100 times in a row, what is the chance of the coin landing the same way after the next flip? This time the answer is 50/50.

]]>I don’t know when you wrote this but I came across 4’33” yesterday. I happened to be the sound tech at a chamber music festival where they perfomed 4’33”. As a technician it really annoyed me. Did I really have to sit there amplifying nothing? Also as a musician I can’t think of this as anything else than an elitist ploy.

However, your point is valid. But this means you’d have to somehow be aware of the ”original”. Just like Goering was perfectly insanely happy with his fake until he was aware that it was a fake.

Also, the painting was a discoverable fake. The 4’33” I ”heard” yesterday was performed by a string quartet, not a piano player as ”the original”. Why wasn’t this a fake then?

These points are on a completely philosophical level. Personally I am actually still quite pissed off my time was missused this way.

]]>