> >My question: if the order of speakers was changed around, but each of
> >their patters remained the same, would the resultant pattern have _any_
> >similarity to the previous one? I would say no... chaos.
>
> But then if you noted the numbers in the order in which each person was
> previously seatedn then youget the original number order as well.
>
> If the new order of seats has geometrical symmetries, like say only
> a roation around the center (one seat displacement of everybody),
> then you'll find the ordered number easier. It's just a matter of knowing
> the meta-rule which say "change the order of the persons this way" and
> then applying it in reverse.
It seems like you're saying, "If you generate random numbers using a
formula, it won't be random and it'll have a pattern that reflects, at
some level, that formula." Is this your idea?
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.
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.
The beauty and wonder of our ability to find order in chaos, now that, that
is truly a remarkable and astounding thing.