JSNYC
In this thread I stated that I thought the Tarot, or rather drawing spreads was completely random.
Click here to view the post in the thread: psychological or magical
And then subsequently in another thread, a poster asked me for a theory. So I began to contemplate expounding on the theory of randomness, which I believe is a concept that is simply not understood and often misunderstood. I then received an email from a friend that confirmed this. I did a few spreads for my friend 2 - 3 weeks prior to writing this email, his first spreads (I believe). His initial response to those spreads (a couple days later) was to mention "goose bumps". I also sent him some links to my posts here on this site. Here is a copy of the email:
Random
Random number
So essentially, something that is random, is something that has an unknown cause or pattern. It is also interesting to point out that the definition changes slightly when applied to statistics, but that is a farce, which I will address later.
All the largest and oldest religions have a paradox at their core. Their systems are fairly easy to figure out. The religion of science is no different, and one of those paradoxes is randomness. Something that is random is something with an unknown cause or pattern. So if the cause or pattern is truly unknown, then the cause could be deliberate and the pattern simply not identified yet. Thus within the definition of random is the concept of deliberate, hence the paradox. Randomness is simply a paradox, a Pandora's Box, within which the religion of science places all the things it cannot explain. Then the standard deviation curve is applied to all things deemed to be random, to give them the semblance of being explained.
This leads to a pet peeve of mine. Some people have stated that they would like to "test" the Tarot, to see if it is "random". That is so asinine. Only someone with no real concept of the meaning of randomness could propose that. This thinking is based on the "Statistics" definitions copied from encarta above. Essentially, because the concept of random has been tied to the standard deviation curve, anything deemed random is assumed to adhere to the standard deviation curve. I said this is a farce because as we have already determined, something that is random has an unknown cause or pattern. However, within statistics, a pattern is assumed, and one that does not work in every case.
This is not my theory. Those in finance are already analyzing this problem. It is well known in finance that the standard deviation curve is flawed. This is proven in the book The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This book was preceded by his book entitled, Fooled by Randomness, that is quite appropriate. I am also sure that Stephanie Pui-Mun Law, the creator of the Shadowscapes Tarot understands this as well. This concept is presented in her 9 of Pentacles to some extent. Also, for those that understand this concept, the cause of the recent credit crisis is also quite clear. Derivatives were created using models based on the standard deviation curve, the models broke because the pattern doesn't work. My friend also understands this as well, at least on some level, and it is evident in a subsequent email he sent me (we were talking about lottery probabilities):
Finally, I will illustrate this phantom concept of randomness with one other fact. Computers are at the core of this religion of science. They have even created a computer so powerful (Big Blue) that it can beat the world's greatest chess champion. There is almost nothing that a computer cannot do, except create a random number, or anything random. Anyone with any experience programming computers knows this. A computer is simply unable to create a random number. For those not experienced with computer programming, I will explain this briefly. When a computer creates a "random" number a code object is used, which is called a "random number generator". This random number generator is "seeded" with a number to begin with. The code then produces a number using an erratic pattern that simulates what appears to be a random number. However, if the random number generator is given the same "seed number", it will produce the exact same sequence of numbers every time it is run. Typically a programmer will seed the random number generator with the current date and time, thus producing a different sequence of numbers every time the code is run, because it is always a different date and time. But the fact remains, if the random number generator is started with the same number, it will always produce the same sequence of numbers. Thus the number isn't "random" because there is a pattern, but that pattern is so erratic as to make it's identification all but impossible to detect without knowing the pattern or algorithm used to create it. Although the pattern cannot be seen or identified, that does not negate the fact that there is a pattern.
Mathematics simply cannot create a random number. An algorithm always produces a defined pattern. Thus, the god of the religion of science, the computer, proves that there is no such thing as a random number or randomness. It is a paradox and a phantom concept. So yes, drawing Tarot spreads is "random", because that is closest thing there is to modeling the randomness of human nature. Random = unknown, truly unknown. And usually science heralds the exploration of the unknown... Except when we are talking about the Tarot and the exploration of our world and ourselves. Then the unknown is called random and exploration is mocked or derided, because the High Priests of science know that their religion is flawed or at least missing something crucial.
To use the Tarot does not require a leap of faith or anything mystical or metaphysical. It only requires the acceptance of two things. First is to accept that there are things in this world that are not explained by science. (Things often conveniently labeled random.) This is rather a mundane concept. To believe otherwise would be to assume that mankind has figured out and defined everything in our world. Thus the only sane and logical assumption is that we have not explained everything. The next assumption is that the Tarot is one of those things, or that the Tarot illuminates one of those things. But I cannot convince anyone of that; that is a door that must be opened by each individual himself or herself.
So yes, I believe the Tarot is random, and I believe that label should be embraced, not rejected. That does not disprove the Tarot, on the contrary, being labeled random simply means that the Tarot is unknown and hasn't (yet) been explained. Whether the Tarot is statistically random is superfluous and irrelevant. The physical cards are certainly random and adhere to the natural laws of standard deviation curve. But when a spread is drawn... magically random things occur. However, due to the subjective element present when drawing spreads, it can never be definitively proven whether that is “random” or not.
I recently introduced someone to the Tarot and they said something that I found quite insightful. They said the Tarot helps us deal with and organize random thoughts and the randomness of life. It seems to me only logical that the best way to deal with the randomness of life is with random cards...
One final thing that I just thought of; if we were both given a deck of cards in the exact same order and were told to shuffle the cards for 5 minutes, do you think the order of both our decks would be the same after 5 minutes of shuffling? It is extremely doubtful, even if we coordinated the number of times we shuffled our decks. Then if the decks were put back in order and we were told to shuffle the decks for 5 minutes again, what do you think the probability would be that each of our decks would be in the same order they were after the first time we shuffled them? Is shuffling a deck of Tarot cards really “neutral” and “random”? A comparison with the random number generator, mentioned above, is interesting.
This concept is so mundane that it has already been written about. Those before us understood this concept, we have forgotten. So I will close with some quotes.
First, the I Ching (Richard Wilhelm’s translation):
8 of Pentacles ~*~ Page of Cups ~*~ 7 of Cups
Any attempts to define the Tarot, to see the entire the pattern, will only lead to more questions. The truly magical thing about randomness is that once a pattern is extracted and randomness defined, when we turn around, randomness is still there, waiting to be defined once more.
That kind of makes me think of a black hole. There is a famous scientist in his 90’s working on “solving” black holes right now. As above so below, as within so without…
-----------------
P.S.
You mentioned "what if the same cards came up?" Oh! You are reaching there! I have a deck of 78 cards, which I shuffle thoroughly, and you present the possibility that I could draw the exact same 10 cards, in the same order, 2 or more times?!?
Well, if that happened, simply being totally amazed at the remarkably random coincidence of that occurring would certainly change the reading.
Reading Tarot cards is not a formulaic. Seeing the patterns in the cards is similar to seeing the patterns in the markets. The patterns are the same, but they are also different every time as well. Because both the Tarot and the markets are influenced by the same random pattern.
Click here to view the post in the thread: psychological or magical
And then subsequently in another thread, a poster asked me for a theory. So I began to contemplate expounding on the theory of randomness, which I believe is a concept that is simply not understood and often misunderstood. I then received an email from a friend that confirmed this. I did a few spreads for my friend 2 - 3 weeks prior to writing this email, his first spreads (I believe). His initial response to those spreads (a couple days later) was to mention "goose bumps". I also sent him some links to my posts here on this site. Here is a copy of the email:
First, I will start with the dictionary definition of random, from www.encarta.com:I read through most of the 16 page thread and it's way beyond what I can understand at the moment
So on the whole, I'm pretty confused about the whole thing. You described it in pretty broad terms to me, and it may be so mind boggling of a concept that you have to have an epiphany of the kind that you had to finally understand it's true power. I didn't have that, so maybe that's why I fail to see it's true power. Maybe I'm missing something basic about it.
Random
- without pattern: done, chosen, or occurring without an identifiable pattern, plan, system, or connection.
- lacking regularity: with a pattern or in sizes that are not uniform or regular.
- Statistics equally likely: relating or belonging to a set in which all the members have the same probability of occurrence.
- Statistics having definite probability: relating to or involving variables that have undetermined value but definite probability.
Random number
- number from sequence without pattern: a number in a series of numbers that have no pattern in their progression.
So essentially, something that is random, is something that has an unknown cause or pattern. It is also interesting to point out that the definition changes slightly when applied to statistics, but that is a farce, which I will address later.
All the largest and oldest religions have a paradox at their core. Their systems are fairly easy to figure out. The religion of science is no different, and one of those paradoxes is randomness. Something that is random is something with an unknown cause or pattern. So if the cause or pattern is truly unknown, then the cause could be deliberate and the pattern simply not identified yet. Thus within the definition of random is the concept of deliberate, hence the paradox. Randomness is simply a paradox, a Pandora's Box, within which the religion of science places all the things it cannot explain. Then the standard deviation curve is applied to all things deemed to be random, to give them the semblance of being explained.
This leads to a pet peeve of mine. Some people have stated that they would like to "test" the Tarot, to see if it is "random". That is so asinine. Only someone with no real concept of the meaning of randomness could propose that. This thinking is based on the "Statistics" definitions copied from encarta above. Essentially, because the concept of random has been tied to the standard deviation curve, anything deemed random is assumed to adhere to the standard deviation curve. I said this is a farce because as we have already determined, something that is random has an unknown cause or pattern. However, within statistics, a pattern is assumed, and one that does not work in every case.
This is not my theory. Those in finance are already analyzing this problem. It is well known in finance that the standard deviation curve is flawed. This is proven in the book The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This book was preceded by his book entitled, Fooled by Randomness, that is quite appropriate. I am also sure that Stephanie Pui-Mun Law, the creator of the Shadowscapes Tarot understands this as well. This concept is presented in her 9 of Pentacles to some extent. Also, for those that understand this concept, the cause of the recent credit crisis is also quite clear. Derivatives were created using models based on the standard deviation curve, the models broke because the pattern doesn't work. My friend also understands this as well, at least on some level, and it is evident in a subsequent email he sent me (we were talking about lottery probabilities):
Yes, odds are entirely useless when applied to an individual event. It is only when the odds (the standard deviation curve) are applied to a collection or series of events that some semblance of a pattern emerges. To illustrate this I will use the simple, random concept of a coin flip. If a coin is flipped 10 times, and it comes up heads every time, does that prove that flipping a coin is not "random"? And then after flipping the coin 10 times and seeing heads every time, what is the probability that the next coin flip will be tails? The standard deviation curve simultaneously assumes that the next flip, being an individual event, that the probability is 50%, the same odds as in the first flip. However, assuming a reversion to the mean within the sequence of coin flips, would mean that the odds of tails coming up should be higher. Using the same pattern, when looking at the individual event the odds are different than looking at the odds within the collection of events (the sequence of coin flips). So that begs the question, how many times must a coin be flipped in order to attain that "equal distribution" that "randomness" promises? If a coin is flipped 100 times, could I then be promised an equal distribution? What about 1,000 times? The answer is that it is never attained, it is random, and it is a paradox. The Hanged Man surely understands this concept.
Finally, I will illustrate this phantom concept of randomness with one other fact. Computers are at the core of this religion of science. They have even created a computer so powerful (Big Blue) that it can beat the world's greatest chess champion. There is almost nothing that a computer cannot do, except create a random number, or anything random. Anyone with any experience programming computers knows this. A computer is simply unable to create a random number. For those not experienced with computer programming, I will explain this briefly. When a computer creates a "random" number a code object is used, which is called a "random number generator". This random number generator is "seeded" with a number to begin with. The code then produces a number using an erratic pattern that simulates what appears to be a random number. However, if the random number generator is given the same "seed number", it will produce the exact same sequence of numbers every time it is run. Typically a programmer will seed the random number generator with the current date and time, thus producing a different sequence of numbers every time the code is run, because it is always a different date and time. But the fact remains, if the random number generator is started with the same number, it will always produce the same sequence of numbers. Thus the number isn't "random" because there is a pattern, but that pattern is so erratic as to make it's identification all but impossible to detect without knowing the pattern or algorithm used to create it. Although the pattern cannot be seen or identified, that does not negate the fact that there is a pattern.
Mathematics simply cannot create a random number. An algorithm always produces a defined pattern. Thus, the god of the religion of science, the computer, proves that there is no such thing as a random number or randomness. It is a paradox and a phantom concept. So yes, drawing Tarot spreads is "random", because that is closest thing there is to modeling the randomness of human nature. Random = unknown, truly unknown. And usually science heralds the exploration of the unknown... Except when we are talking about the Tarot and the exploration of our world and ourselves. Then the unknown is called random and exploration is mocked or derided, because the High Priests of science know that their religion is flawed or at least missing something crucial.
To use the Tarot does not require a leap of faith or anything mystical or metaphysical. It only requires the acceptance of two things. First is to accept that there are things in this world that are not explained by science. (Things often conveniently labeled random.) This is rather a mundane concept. To believe otherwise would be to assume that mankind has figured out and defined everything in our world. Thus the only sane and logical assumption is that we have not explained everything. The next assumption is that the Tarot is one of those things, or that the Tarot illuminates one of those things. But I cannot convince anyone of that; that is a door that must be opened by each individual himself or herself.
So yes, I believe the Tarot is random, and I believe that label should be embraced, not rejected. That does not disprove the Tarot, on the contrary, being labeled random simply means that the Tarot is unknown and hasn't (yet) been explained. Whether the Tarot is statistically random is superfluous and irrelevant. The physical cards are certainly random and adhere to the natural laws of standard deviation curve. But when a spread is drawn... magically random things occur. However, due to the subjective element present when drawing spreads, it can never be definitively proven whether that is “random” or not.
I recently introduced someone to the Tarot and they said something that I found quite insightful. They said the Tarot helps us deal with and organize random thoughts and the randomness of life. It seems to me only logical that the best way to deal with the randomness of life is with random cards...
One final thing that I just thought of; if we were both given a deck of cards in the exact same order and were told to shuffle the cards for 5 minutes, do you think the order of both our decks would be the same after 5 minutes of shuffling? It is extremely doubtful, even if we coordinated the number of times we shuffled our decks. Then if the decks were put back in order and we were told to shuffle the decks for 5 minutes again, what do you think the probability would be that each of our decks would be in the same order they were after the first time we shuffled them? Is shuffling a deck of Tarot cards really “neutral” and “random”? A comparison with the random number generator, mentioned above, is interesting.
This concept is so mundane that it has already been written about. Those before us understood this concept, we have forgotten. So I will close with some quotes.
First, the I Ching (Richard Wilhelm’s translation):
Then, of course, the master:
In the following quote, change the word “mysticism” to “randomness”.
And finally, something I would like to close all my posts with:
I did this once before, there is something else I want to say but I cannot put it into words, so I will draw 3 cards from the Shadowscapes Tarot:
8 of Pentacles ~*~ Page of Cups ~*~ 7 of Cups
Any attempts to define the Tarot, to see the entire the pattern, will only lead to more questions. The truly magical thing about randomness is that once a pattern is extracted and randomness defined, when we turn around, randomness is still there, waiting to be defined once more.
That kind of makes me think of a black hole. There is a famous scientist in his 90’s working on “solving” black holes right now. As above so below, as within so without…
-----------------
P.S.
You mentioned "what if the same cards came up?" Oh! You are reaching there! I have a deck of 78 cards, which I shuffle thoroughly, and you present the possibility that I could draw the exact same 10 cards, in the same order, 2 or more times?!?
Well, if that happened, simply being totally amazed at the remarkably random coincidence of that occurring would certainly change the reading.
Reading Tarot cards is not a formulaic. Seeing the patterns in the cards is similar to seeing the patterns in the markets. The patterns are the same, but they are also different every time as well. Because both the Tarot and the markets are influenced by the same random pattern.
