I would say that depends
That depends on one's frame of reference.
Dictionary and math would be quite basic prerequisites in a discussion like this.
You likely won't hit the same number again
But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)
You state this as a fact but it's backwards. If there was any kind of "memory" in a dice game it could be exploited by the casino or by the player, who could keep betting on numbers "far away" from the previous number to increase their chances. It would be over very quickly, most likely due to the casino going bankrupt. But fortunately it doesn't work like that.
Do you think the roulette wheel has memory too?
I hope you're not saying that casinos should use something like this. In the long run a good PRNG should approximate Poisson distribution and I believe certified RNGs are tested against it as well as many other statistical tests. But the RNG algorithm itself should not be based on it.