I really like using random elements in my work; both assignments so far have incorporated random elements because I feel like it adds so much movement and engagement with only a few lines of code. The computer program almost creates the art for you; you just have to give it a guiding path to follow. Even though I like randomness, there’s still specific visions I want it to follow. I use random as a way to represent reality and organic ways of forming images. For example, carefully placed and well-thought out placements of certain objects feel artificial; being able to simulate randomness means mimicking real life.
The book of random numbers (million digits) in Casey’s talk mirrors my point; people use these numbers to simulate and test things in the real-world. It did get me wondering though, if multiple areas and teams are using this specific set of random numbers, would it eventually be unreliable? Depending on the context in which it’s used, I’m sure it doesn’t matter, but I just felt like if the whole point of these random numbers is to give unbiased data on society, they shouldn’t be reused over and over again. Another thought came to mind when watching the video: our universe is just a random simulator. What if our world was just programmed by someone who used randomness to let organic life move and form freely? This reminds me of the theory popularized by the Matrix about how we’re very likely living in a simulation because eventually, a civilized society will develop the ability to simulate worlds, which then can also simulate worlds, and so on. That means there are probably millions of simulated worlds and only one base reality; the likelihood of us being one in a million is unlikely. We might be a simulation to test a specific outcome, and that technology could be rooted in the randomness shown in Casey Reas’ talk.