it appears to be fundamental

>>16794896
Ask yourself whether omnipotence is possible or not realistically. Then you have the answer.

>>16794896
IRL, everything is random, but in computers, nothing is random, although it can be unpredictable.

>>16794896
I view randomness as reasonable assumptions that compensate for lack of information. If I know exactly the orientation of the dice before I throw it and the force vector then I know exactly where it will land. In most cases however I don't know neither of them so I make the assumption that the dice has no preference for which side it will land on.

>>16794918
I've heard people say that computers can't be truly random, and that to circumvent this, some companies have used literal lava lamps to as source of randomness for whatever they were trying to achieve, I think it was related to security

no

/thread

>>16794896
probably not lol

>>16794896
The entire randomness vs. determinism dichotomy is false. Neither one characterizes reality.

>>16794896
check reddit, they are so random!

>>16794918
> but in computers, nothing is random

This is wrong. You're confusing computer algorithms (as mathematical processes), for physical computers which accumulate errors from the many complexities involved in the actual computational process. These errors are often corrected through error detection and correction processes leveraging redundancy (e.g., LDPC, which basically every modern flash-memory drive uses), but they occur.

If you were to repeatedly initialize a seed, and perform a sequence of calculations, you will find that those sequence of calculations will have differences in them. Those differences may be negligible (individual bit flips), but they will happen.

>>16794896
that's quite a conundrum
randomness is impossible if you are an atheist
but it is also impossible if you believe in an omnipotent God

for randomness to exist you must accept the metaphysical, without an omnipotent God
and very few people can accept both

>>16794972
The location of the electron at a given moment of time. Wasn't that supposed to be random according to science people?

>>16795178
>t. Katy t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m

>>16795306
>The location of the electron at a given moment of time.
I heard it was the velocity? One of us must be wrong.

there are a finite number of particles in the universe that can only interact with each other in a finite number of ways, so, no. A god-like supercomputer could process this finite amount of information to correctly predict every coin flip that you and every human being that will ever live will ever make. Like Conway's game of life

>>16795310
In the electron cloud thingy, it just teleports whererever it wants randomly. At least that's my understanding it could be wrong.

>>16795322
>electron cloud thingy
AWS? That just, like, someone else's computer, man.

>>16795299
> randomness is impossible if you are an atheist but it is also impossible if you believe in an omnipotent God

I don't follow your reasoning in either case. Why does being an atheist preclude randomness? Similarly, how does a God being omnipotent preclude randomness?

Both atheistic and (Christian) theistic beliefs can be made sound under either determinism or indeterminism.

>>16794972
The most accurate statistical characterization of reality we have is that it conforms well to a locally stationary stochastic process, with stable but changing statistical moments.

That is a statistical characterization. I have yet to see a perfectly sound and predictive metaphysical characterization of reality. I am not holding my breath.

>>16795306
no they just can't measure it definitely because to measure it, you have to influence it (hit it with something). basedentists have over-interrelated this to mean more than it means

>>16795299
The atheist religion is based on the randomness that things happened for no reason at all and humans suddenly began existing out of nothing

>>16794896
No

>>16794918
What the fuck are you saying?

>>16794896
Is randomness possible in a video game? Or is it just the programming?

>>16795456
Computers exist in a virtual reality

>>16795457
Yes, randomness is possible in a video game. In fact, many video games intentionally introduce random elements which are not easily reproduced with seed setting mechanisms.

>>16794896
No, its a quirk of language

>>16794896
Import Rand nigga there’s random for you

>>16795346
>omnipotence
sorry the right word was omniscience not omnipotence
and please don't give me the endless theories of cope that try to reconcile omniscience with non-determinism
if somebody knows everything, everything is preordained, simple as

>atheism
>but muh quarks and radioactive decay
no you just accepted your brain is too small and you don't know the inner workings of these things
Laplace said it best, if somebody knew the exact current state of the universe, he could predict the next state.
All the experiments done to "prove the universe throws dice" are flawed, in that the subjects of the experiments are NEVER identical.

>>16795299
this is quite possibly the most retarded thing i have ever read

>>16795178
rds

>>16795350
>a perfectly sound and predictive metaphysical characterization of reality
I don't know about predictive, but classical aristotelian act-potency maps very well to stochastic terms: potency as probability distribution, act as realized outcome, locally stationary implies form (distributional stability) and intelligibility (metrizability), changing statistical moments implying that change in configurations of matter are changes in form, entropy being unrealized potency, and reduction of entropy (as a reduction of uncertainty) fitting nicely to the narrowing of potentialities to a single realized act. and so on.

>>16794939
Cryptography. You need to generate large random numbers for your crypto keys, but if you use a substandard generator you risk someone replicating the process to break your encryption faster.

>>16795350
>The most accurate statistical characterization of reality we have is that it conforms well to a locally stationary stochastic process, with stable but changing statistical moments.
And yet all this characterization of reality does in the end is highlight the truth of my post.

Ask a quantum quack. They appear to worship quantum uncertainty as a sort of stand in for God. They truly believe they have found the Root of All. That something can indeed come from nothing.

>>16794896
Randomness is possible in living organisms, but not in machines or digital systems

>>16796239
Why can't something come from nothing? Be sure to use logical reasoning when you answer.

>>16796245
If something can arise out of nothing, then nothing has the property of being capable of giving rising to something. But nothing has no properties, therefore something cannot arise out of nothing.

>>16796247
>If something can arise out of nothing, then nothing has the property of being capable of giving rising to something
Looks like a non-sequitur to me. "Capable of giving rise to" casts nothing as some kind of positive creative force. This is not a necessary implication of "coming from nothing".

I’m going to be honest, randomness isn’t even random.
So it’s basically not even mathematically possible.

>>16796249
So just rephrase that part to "nothing has the property of giving rise to something"

>>16796251
>So just rephrase that part to "nothing has the property of giving rise to something"
This doesn't change anything. "Give rise to" means "to cause". You're effectively stating that nothing can't cause something. That may be true, but causality is not a necessary implication of "coming from nothing". Maybe something can come from nothing because 'nothing' can't prevent anything.

>>16796250
mathematics =/= tangible reality

>>16796255
I don't think there's an causality I'm invoking here
0. For any predicate Q(x), x is in the domain of Q if Q(x) is either true or false.
0.5. Nothing is not in the domain of any predicate.
1. Something came from nothing.
2. Definition: Let P(x) be the predicate that "Something came out of x"
3. By P1, P(nothing) is true.
4. By 0, nothing is in the domain of P.
5. This contradicts 0.5

>>16796263
>0.5. Nothing is not in the domain of any predicate.
Why not? 'Nothing' as an object of analysis isn't nothing. 'Nothing' as a matter of fact isn't an object.

>>16796260
Mathematics is so big it contains reality as a trivial solution in a subspace that’s almost empty in the universal set.
Even if I did say pure randomness did exist I could only define and describe by how I can’t define and describe it.
The closest I could get is a vacuous case.
Which is congruent to saying nothing is truly random.

>>16796266
I'm just using my definition of nothing. I don't know your definition of nothing.

>>16796268
what you said is indistinguishable from /x/ schizo mental gymnastics

>>16796271
I'm just saying you're confusing different meta levels. You say:
>0.5. Nothing is not in the domain of any predicate.
But isn't "not in the domain of any predicate", a predicate?

>>16796275
>But isn't "not in the domain of any predicate", a predicate?
It's a predicate on the meta level, not in the language of the theory, so I don't see how this is a problem.

>>16796276
Your argument clearly states "any predicate". If you meant something else, feel free to make it explicit in a refined argument.

>>16796276
>>16796287
>runs away
That's rude. If you think I'm strawmanning you by over-extending "any predicate", then explain why you're plugging in "nothing" in Premise 3 into the predicate P?

>>16795490
> sorry the right word was omniscience not omnipotence
and please don't give me the endless theories of cope that try to reconcile omniscience with non-determinism
if somebody knows everything, everything is preordained, simple as.

You have a weird understanding of Christian metaphysics. Something being understood by an entity which transcends material reality doesn't necessitate any particular behavior of material reality. If we as human beings are bound to a 4 dimensional mortal coil, there could very well be something which explains randomness in a fashion which is inaccessible to us.

Randomness tells you that you cannot exactly predict the realization of the random variable regardless of what information you have. It doesn't tell you the mechanism by which the random variable is realized.

>>16796413
>if somebody knows everything, everything is preordained, simple as.
If everything is taken to mean "everything there is to know", then non-determinism doesn't logically contradict omniscience. Some questions can be meaningful from a limited "insider" perspective but meaningless from an omniscient being's external viewpoint, so that saying such a being either knows or doesn't know the answer would be a meaningless statement.

>>16796438
That bit was in the post I was responding to. I just messed up the green text by not accounting for the spaces.

I agree with this part though:

> If everything is taken to mean "everything there is to know", then non-determinism doesn't logically contradict omniscience

I think a lot of people have a strange understanding of the Christian God, and some part of that is likely due to people never really being exposed to a more nuanced understanding of these ideas. An omniscient God could be one who has immediate access to knowledge of anything they desire, but for whom there are entire categories of "things to know" for which they have no interest. I don't see this idea as being contradictory with Christian theology at all.

In fact, the entire Christian conception of "free will" implies that the God is intentionally choosing not to inquire or intervene into your soul's journey, leaving you as a person to decide what path you will take. Defining omniscience based on whether or not the God "knows" your choices ahead of time sort of misses the point that a God for whom each of these choices was already pre-ordained would have no desire to grant each soul free will to begin with.

Either way, this is far afield of science.

>>16796447
>An omniscient God could be one who has immediate access to knowledge of anything they desire, but for whom there are entire categories of "things to know" for which they have no interest.
I don't really see how this fixes the problem unless you mean they are indeterminate until God decides to examine them like some kind of Christian wave function collapse.

>>16796413
>if you are too dumb, then everything is random
absolute cope

>>16796243
> Randomness is possible in living organisms, but not in machines or digital systems.

A digital system has its "data" stored in circuits with transistors holding the state via capacitance/charge storage. That charge leaks into the surrounding circuits in ways which are fundamentally as random as anything else to deal with electron dynamics. Such randomness is one of the direct causes of flash memory degradation over time if it sits unused.

>>16796450
> I don't really see how this fixes the problem unless you mean they are indeterminate until God decides to examine them like some kind of Christian wave function collapse.

I mean that a God could be "omniscient" in some spiritual/philosophical sense without having direct knowledge of the exact path an electron travels as it orbits a nucleus of an atom. These are not contradictory ideas.

Do you believe that Christianity hinges upon whether or not "God's word" is directly responsible for the exact moment to moment dance of every elementary particle, or is knowledge of the piece they are dancing to sufficient?

>>16796453
>just keep zooming in on digital systems until they look like analog systems
>also, muh data corruption
You sure got him there. He probably should have said "randomness isn't possible for classical computations and theoretical computing machines".

>>16796451
> If you are too dumb, then everything is random

I worry that you're too dumb to understand what randomness as a concept means. Having some intractable uncertainty about the exact inner workings of a system does not mean you cannot understand it in an external fashion (input-output).

It is entirely possible to have a system for which the answer of "how much knowledge is enough to exactly predict its next behavior" is "there is never enough." Whether or not it is "determined" in some entirely inaccessible transcendent realm means nothing to us if by all means of material observation, it is intractably random.

>>16796245
>>16796249
>>16796255
Why are you doubling down? They made a good point. Quantum uncertainty doesn’t really hold up under base logic. It’s illogical. To just assume there are no hidden variables. Or that something comes from nothing. It flies in the face of science. It’s always been a huge red flag that humans aren’t as smart as they think they are, if they actually believe something like this. I don’t dislike Bohr but I’m quite disappointed in him. Einstein was always right. If anything people only wanted to think Einstein was wrong because who doesn’t want to prove Einstein wrong? But not me. I don’t.

>>16796460
> You sure got him there. He probably should have said "randomness isn't possible for classical computations and theoretical computing machines".

The theoretical computing machines part is correct. Anything with any sort of energy or information storage capacity will have intractable randomness in reality. There is no such thing as a mechanism for doing work which does not have intractable randomness at some level of precision.

>>16796462
Ever since someone pointed out that quantum uncertainty is like believing in absolute conjuration (just like God) the probabilists have been having tantrums.

We’ve already proved that there are things that move faster than light. Reality can’t be both real or local. One or both of these things are untrue. Spooky action at a distance is very fucking real.

>>16796461
>the ant got bug-sprayed and died in a random act of God
>truly God works in mysterious ways it thought as it perished

>>16796466
Have you ever read any Bernardo Kastrup? If you can get over the wackiness, you might find his writing interesting.

I'm not 100% sold on analytic idealism, but I think there are real flaws in materialism that Kastrup points out.

>>16796462
>>16796466
Bohr deep down believed in a magical spontaneously appearing God.

“Don’t tell God what to do”

>>16796456
>I mean that a God could be "omniscient" in some spiritual/philosophical sense without having direct knowledge of the exact path an electron travels as it orbits a nucleus of an atom. These are not contradictory ideas.
You're defining an ad hoc, cop-out version of "omniscience" that excludes the answers to potentially meaningful questions.

>Do you believe that Christianity hinges upon whether or not "God's word" is directly responsible for the exact moment to moment dance of every elementary particle, or is knowledge of the piece they are dancing to sufficient?
It's clear that Christianity doesn't hinge upon logical consistency in any case, but many of the foundational Christian scholars thought the world to be a perfectly designed machine. How can you design a perfect machine if you can't perfectly predict the outcome of its working principles?

>>16796469
Where did your understanding of Christian theology come from? It seems like you have some strange ideas about what Christians believe about God.

>>16796470
>but I think there are real flaws in materialism
Literally how? What is materialism to you? Anything with mass or anything that’s there? That matters? Even space is a fabric of a kind. Physics deals with what is real.

This is why I find Christians funny. They’re basically arguing God doesn’t exist when they argue against materialism.

Replace materialism with there-ism. Is something there? Is it real? Was it ever there? Will it ever be there?

If people think the spiritual isn’t material then I want off of this shit planet. It’s full of absolute dumbasses.

>>16796462
>Why are you doubling down?
Doubling down on what? Asking him to state his case without logical non-sequiturs? He was the one "doubling down", until he ended up trying to make a format argument, contradicting himself and then giving up.

>>16796463
>There is no such thing as a mechanism for doing work which does not have intractable randomness at some level of precision.
I agree but I think he was trying to say that insofar as the computer performs its intended function and adheres to the computational model, it's incapable of randomness. The same can't be said about biology.

>>16796472
> It's clear that Christianity doesn't hinge upon logical consistency in any case, but many of the foundational Christian scholars thought the world to be a perfectly designed machine. How can you design a perfect machine if you can't perfectly predict the outcome of its working principles?

I believe that Christianity as a religion has its understanding of the workings of God anchored into the time and place in which the believers exist. The writings you're talking about largely come about during the time of scientific and industrial revolution, where people were optimistic that there were no problems which mathematics and science could not solve. If you look at the writings of Christians during times where the world felt cruel, vicious and capricious, you'd find a different rationalization of omniscience.

In either direction, my key point is that, regardless of whether a God conforming to one of the many variations which have been developed over the history of Abrahamic faith is "omniscient" depends quite a lot on the meaning of the word "omniscient." A God which understands exactly what they deem as knowledge, and absolutely nothing more, could be "omniscient." Omniscience is a term which in its very utterance begs the question of "what is there to know?" If such a God exists, it is doubtless that they might not agree with us mortals on such a question.

>>16796479
> Literally how? What is materialism to you? Anything with mass or anything that’s there? That matters? Even space is a fabric of a kind. Physics deals with what is real.

Kastrup's book "Science Ideated" is not about Christianity or God. His original educational background is in computer engineering, not theology (though, later on he did end up completing a second PhD in philosophy, about a decade after the first).

I don't think his worldview of analytic idealism is perfect or bulletproof, but it at least makes obvious some clear flaws with "scientific materialism" as a metaphysical worldview.

> This is why I find Christians funny. They’re basically arguing God doesn’t exist when they argue against materialism.

I'm not a Christian. I have spent some time studying theology as a hobby, but I'm not a believer. Your second point, however, is patently false. Scientific materialsm is not the worldview that "there is matter." It is the worldview that "at the bottom of everything" is material.

If one believes that at the bottom of everything is some deterministic pattern, you almost have to be opposed to materialism by default. Matter is not itself its own transcendent deterministic organization.

>>16796483
The perfectly tuned machine concept goes back to the earliest Christian scholars who adopted it from the Ancient Greeks. Maybe you're referring to the Clockwork Universe of the Deists, but that's really just the Logos with a new coat of paint. But if you're willing to part with the Christian intellectual tradition, you can make free will + omniscience work - I've already granted that.

>Omniscience is a term which in its very utterance begs the question of "what is there to know?" If such a God exists, it is doubtless that they might not agree with us mortals on such a question.
But you said God just doesn't care to know. Are you implying that if God doesn't care to know something, it's not subject to knowledge even in principle?

>>16796410
I just didn't want to bother spend so much time explaining some troll proof I made up to waste my time. As for your question,
0, 0.5 are statements in the meta-language.
1. is a statement in the language of the theory, so there's no problem with substituting nothing for the variable x in P(x).

>>16796507
>1. is a statement in the language of the theory, so there's no problem with substituting nothing for the variable x in P(x).
I'm talking about Premise 3 and yes there is a problem: what you're essentially implying is that you can't plug nothing into P (as in, you can't just not plug anything into P), but then you go ahead and plug 'nothing' into P. Your premise treats 'nothing' as a term. 'nothing' is only a term in the meta-language. So either Premise 3 is syntactically invalid, or it's talking about a predicate in the meta-language (and then it's semantically invalid).

>>16796516
No, 'nothing' is a term in the language of the theory, but you can talk about it in the meta language too. If the statement "Something came from nothing" is a true statement of the theory, then by 0, it follows that "nothing" is in the domain of P.

>>16796523
>'nothing' is a term in the language of the theory
Then on what basis do you assert it's not in the domain of any predicate?

>>16796527
By 0.5, that's an axiom in the metalanguage which states that (meta)property of the object 'nothing'

>>16796492
> The perfectly tuned machine concept goes back to the earliest Christian scholars who adopted it from the Ancient Greeks.

I was going to say, this sounds pinched from Plato. I'll give you an example of said ideological distinction with Gnosticism.

Its typical for early Gnostic Christian writers to refer to God as the "eternal source of all creation," including the Demiurge "from whom the material world flows. The Monad is the "source of the Demiurge," and the Monad "knows" the Demiurge in the sense of knowing their heart. Yet the Monad does not "know" the imperfect material world which emerged from the Demiurge.

If you were to ask a Valentinian Christian whether or not God having no knowledge of the domain of the Demiurge makes said God not "omnipotent," they would reply that a perfect God has no use of knowing the fallen material world of the Demiurge.

Again, I'm not arguing that this is "correct" in some precise scientific way. I'm not a Valentinian gnostic Christian. I'm not even really a Christian at all except for in some loose "culturally Christian" sense. The point is merely that there are different conceptions of omniscience throughout the faith.

I'm not the arbiter of which one such a God would adhere to (were they to exist and adhere to any of them).

>>16796529
So what's the point of your argument? You just dream up a theory in which there's a term you can't say anything about. You can't show that this relates to reality in any way. Your 'nothing' term is actually just a weird something, characterized only by the way it functions in your argument (which is an argument about nothing, but not in the way you intended).

>>16796540
Yes, there's no point to it. The entire thing is an exercise in obfuscation meant to spread confusion and waste everyone's time because I have nothing better to do.

>>16796541
Well, shame on me trying to make sense of it, then.

>>16796533
There is a line of argumentation here, where knowledge is a justified true belief:
A phenomenon doesn't have truth value and can't be known.

File: chuddy thinking.gif (376 KB, 740x859)

376 KB GIF

>>16794896
Real randomness is possible if infinity exists.

>>16795242
>If you were to repeatedly initialize a seed, and perform a sequence of calculations, you will find that those sequence of calculations will have differences in them
How many runs are we talking here? I think if I ran an LCG algorithm with the same seed on a computer, the resulting sequence would be the same even after like 10^10 runs. It's as you said, the physical processes have to adjust for some degree of inherent randomness/entropy, but that is still extremely unlikely to cause a program to output different results.

Idea: we write a program to generate the first 100 million elements of a sequence generated by a linear congrurential generator or something, and then repeat this process indefinitely, keeping track of how many times it's completed the sequence, and stopping only if a value is found to be different. Like say on the nth run, the 248,975th element is different.

How long do you think that program would run before detecting an error and stopping?

>>16794896
The process of atomic decay is thought to be random, just with a specific timescale (decay rate) but with no other pattern.

>>16798611
That's not true.

>>16798611
Is it thought to be random or did they test it? And how did they test it?

>>16798624
Is it thought to be deterministic or did they test it? And how did they test it?

>>16798624
>>16798621
You cant predict when a specific atom will go pop

>>16798626
That's not an answer to the question you were asked

>>16798611
>(decay rate)
That means you can game it, therefore it's not random.

>>16798640
>therefore it's not random.
Its random, the timescale isnt. A random number generator can spit out a sequence of random numbers, but you can choose if it spits 1 number per second or 100 digits per second.

>>16798637
The false part is that there are many other patterns, not just the decay rate

>>16798648
1. RNGs don't exist
2. flipping tails is no more or less likely the longer you don't flip tails

>>16798638
I wasn't asked any question. Either way, it thought to be deterministic or did they test it? And how did they test it? There isn't actually any possible test for the lunatic fantasy of determinism, is it? How could there be? It's rooted entirely in metaphysics.

>>16798659
>I wasn't asked any question
Why did you interrupt some other conversation if you weren't part of it? Do you have some sort of mental illness?

>>16798667
>Why did you interrupt some other conversation
Because you sounded very intelligent and empiricism-minded, so I thought maybe you can explain how they tested determinism.

>>16798677
How who tested determinism?

>>16798682
The innumerable scientists who stand behind the scientific legitimacy of determinist metaphysics, of course. :^)

>>16798684
You should ask them yourself, if your handlers allow it once your mental illness gets better.

>>16798677
>maybe you can explain how they tested determinism.
>determinism
>tested
lol. lmao, even

>>16798699
>can't be tested
Theological shit goes in /his/ History & Humanities

>>16798603
> How many runs are we talking here? I think if I ran an LCG algorithm with the same seed on a computer, the resulting sequence would be the same even after like 10^10 runs.

It depends on the kind of run you're trying and what kind of error checking/correction is already implemented. If you're talking about calculations where all of the data remains entirely within the cache of your processor, you'd probably have to do quite a lot before you saw differences. If your process was doing read/write from memory (e.g., a sequence of numbers were stored on a hard drive or within memory and you use an RNG to determine which ones to access and then read them into an array on memory), you'd see quite a lot of error accumulation quite quickly without native error checking/correction.

>>16798603
Btw, when I'm talking about "without error correction" in >>16798603 note that pretty much every modern flash memory system implements LDPC in the loop. Your nvme drive controller is quite likely to be willing to sacrifice memory efficiency for enough parity bit redundancy to minimize read/write errors. They still happen often enough that it would only take about 15 minutes of repeatedly initializing a seed, drawing a random number and reading the block of data associated with said random number before you'd get bit errors. Usually those bit errors are inconsequential, but they occur fairly frequently (hence why one of the only real differences between enterprise and consumer grade RAM and storage is the level of error correction in the tradeoff between efficiency and redundancy).

>>16798657
NTA but you're wrong about the first part. Hardware/true random number generation is entirely possible, and has existed for decades. It was very much an intentional design decision to switch to set-seed based pseudo-random number generation like the Mersenne twister. The whole point of pseudo-random number generation is that you can create sequences which mimic an exact stochastic processes, but which are controllable and reproducible.

Using a hardware random number generator produces real randomness (rather than pseudo-randomness) but is largely uncontrollable (meaning you have no ability to exactly reproduce any particular sequence you've generated because the process relies on uncontrollable or unobservable states in its generation process).

>>16798764
What you're describing doesn't exist. All hardware starts from a hardwired state. The best way to fake a single-use random number is by having someone type and mash a keyboard for a minute, then not use the keystrokes but the time intervals between the keystrokes to generate your number. It's still not random but it's a hell of a lot less hackable than any "hardware."

>>16798773
> What you're describing doesn't exist. All hardware starts from a hardwired state.

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Hardware random number generation is used all over the place in applications where true randomness and irreversibility is actually important (mostly the highest levels of cryptography and in gambling machines).

This sentence is especially telling.
> All hardware starts from a hardwired state.

This is absolutely not the case. You're confusing digital systems, which generally do have procedures to ensure that they initialize to roughly the same state, and hardware systems (wherein components can be digital, analog or some combination of the two). In terms of whether these devices exist, there are over 2000 patents with various forms of hardware random number generation. Thermal noise based RNG is used in just about every single slot machine on Earth.

>>16798786
Unfortunately, you're in a bit over your head here. What you're describing is, by definition, not random and the sentence you find "telling" is obviously written to mirror your own linguistic register.

>>16798793
> What you're describing is, by definition, not random

How so? Please, if you have some good way to game a thermal noise based generator, we could make a lot of money (at least until the reservation police catch us and cut our heads off).

>>16798773
>What you're describing doesn't exist. All hardware starts from a hardwired state. The best way to fake a single-use random number is by having someone type and mash a keyboard for a minute, then not use the keystrokes but the time intervals between the keystrokes to generate your number. It's still not random but it's a hell of a lot less hackable than any "hardware."
Someone will read this post and then reply to this mouth-breathing, drool-covered mongoloid unironically, trying to actually prove him wrong.

>>16798799
>India enters the chat
>>16798798
Lol what don't you understand about how seeding works that makes you somehow believer the results can ever be random? Is it a language barrier? Like you have your own baby understanding of what randomness means?

>>16799424
> Lol what don't you understand about how seeding works that makes you somehow believer the results can ever be random.

The whole point of hardware random number generation is that it isn't seeded in the typical fashion (with some hardware RNG not having set seeds at all).

The thermal RNG systems used in slot machines have a system which has a set of parallel pseudo-rng/seeded systems running in parallel, and then use sampling of a noisy analog process (e.g., thermal voltage in a clipped amplifier circuit) to determine when and where to sample. This system does have a "deterministic" process which generates a bunch of parallel pseudo-RNG systems, but the order and timing of sampling is entirely uncontrolled/unseeded.

Some lower bit-rate hardware RNG systems don't use a seeded pseudo-RNG at any point in the process. They rely entirely on sampling and quantization of noisy analog systems with no active control of how often and where those samples occur.

The whole reason why true hardware RNG isn't used in research is because it is fundamentally not controllable, meaning you can't ever exactly replicate the sequence coming out of a HRNG system (like you theoretically could with a seeded system).

>>16799611
>not having set seeds
This is nonsense or at best sophomoric. I can piss into a cup and use the noise to generate a number you'll never be able to backtrace. That doesn't mean the generation was random.

>>16799659
> This is nonsense or at best sophomoric.

I'm starting to think the other anon was right about you. I understand that you were taught about pseudo-random number generation algorithms in your undergraduate computer science course, but you seem to believe that those are the only possible way to generate random numbers (for some strange reason).

There are a lot of advantages to p-RNG algorithms, which is why they are used all over the place. Pseudorandom number generators are the only RNG processes that use seeding. Every other form of random number generation (including the thousands of variations on analog RNG systems that existed prior to the 1970's) do not use set seeds (and are not replicable as a result).

Again, if you think that hardware RNG systems aren't random (meaning they can be games and predicted), you could make a lot of money very quickly. I would challenge you to open your mind a bit and actually try to read about how these systems work instead of just blindly thrashing about and pretending that over 2000 patents for variations on hardware RNG developed over the last 80 years are all fraud.

As a religious neoplatonist, yes perfect randomness exists

>>16799678
>random (meaning they can be game[d] and predicted)
Again, I can piss in a cup, save it in MIDI, and reload it as a bit string that can't be gamed or predicted. That's not what random means.

>>16794972
What characterizes reality is "creativity."
Something characterized in one way as the universe's trend towards increasing complexity.
Towards expanding its possibilities and depths of interactions.
This is not at all like a machine. The metaphor that fits is symphony or tapestry, something that evokes the sense of creative community and process.

>>16799689
What's an example of creativity without sperm and egg?

File: cosmic_evolution.jpg (1.09 MB, 5000x1716)

1.09 MB JPG

>>16799695
The early universe was too hot for even atoms to form. When it expanded and cooled enough to do so, all the complexity of chemistry, stars, and galaxies emerged. The first stars forged the heavier elements that made rocky planets like ours possible. Which in turn made the emergence of life possible.
We've known about this for mere decades, we still haven't come to terms with the radical implications of this view of reality even while it has existed long enough for us to take it for granted.

>>16799678
Can you just define random so this guy shuts the fuck up?

File: 1722050673652482.gif (2.17 MB, 282x202)

2.17 MB GIF

>>16799701
Of course he can't. Neither can you lol.

>>16794896
To conclusively say an event is random would require omniscience.
So saying an event is truly random is impossible to do with validity.

>>16799700
You didn't say creativity in your reply.

>>16799704
>>16799684
Here's what the word "Random" means in a mathematical context:

Random: Unable to be exactly determined or predicted from any previous information. The output of a function is "random" if there is no amount about the inputs into the function which can be used to exactly determine the output of said function.

A number being generated being "random" does not mean "there is no pattern" or "there is no distribution" to the process of generating it. A number being randomly generated means that there is absolutely no amount of information you could ever have about the state of the system which would ever allow you to know exactly what said number would be without directly taking a measurement.

You could know an average or some statistical distribution, but you will never be able to exactly a priori determine what the number is without simply measuring it.

>>16799741
>A number being generated being "random" does not mean "there is no pattern" or "there is no distribution" to the process of generating it.
If that's your definition, who cares lol.

>>16799745
> If that's your definition, who cares lol.

Thats not my definition. That's what the term means in the context of random variables and probability theory. A random variable having a known distribution gives you no exact information about what the next realization will be. You can know as much as you want about the distribution. You could write out every single moment of it to an arbitrary degree of precision.

You will never be able to exactly predict what its next realization is, regardless of how much you know about it. That's what randomness is.

>>16799747
>the next realization
Is nonrandom by
>does not mean "there is no pattern" or "there is no distribution" to the process of generating it

>>16799749
No, you mouth breathing retard. That's not what that means.

A random variable which only takes the values {1,2,3} will inevitably have a pattern. That pattern is that no matter how many times you look at it, you'll never get 4 as one of the values. That's a pattern.

Knowing that the random variable can never be 4 doesn't make you any more able to guess which of 1, 2, or 3 it will be the next time you measure it.

>>16799751
>A random variable which only takes the values {1,2,3} will inevitably have a pattern.
>pi repeats in {base 3} - 1.
Preach king

>>16799752
What does that have to do with anything at all?

>>16799754
>A random variable which only takes the values {1,2,3} will inevitably have a pattern.
How so?

>>16799758
By pattern I don't mean in the realizations. I mean there are patterns to the distribution. There are true statements you can make about the realizations without ever needing them to be deterministic.

For example, [math]X_{k+1}\leq 3[/math] is a pattern the next observation will obey regardless of what the proceeding sequence of [math]X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_k[/math] realizations were.

That's a pattern that the random variable obeys. Similarly, if each [math]X_i[/math] is independent, you can be certain that:
[math]
\mu_X = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n}X_j \in [1,3]
[/math]

That's a pattern that the sequence of X_i realizations must obey as the number increases.

>>16794896
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that randomness is guaranteed thanks to the bell inequalities. There is no local realism, ie: randomness exists.

>>16799815
yeah I am right, bet

https://perso.ens-lyon.fr/omar.fawzi/docs/FermeReport2016.pdf

>>16799808
>if each X_i is independent
They aren't. That's the point.

>>16799825
> They aren't. That's the point.

Based on what, exactly? Also, there are ways we can test for independence. Have you just never taken a probability/statistics course?

>>16799842
How did you generate your X_i

>>16795306
Its not random the electrons are in the electron cloud

>>16799880
> How did you generate your X_i

That depends quite a lot on the circumstances. A common independent ternary case is a binary erasure channel.

Let's say you send a single bit down a communication channel. The receiver either receives the correct bit (0 or 1), or has some probability of missing the detection. That's a 3 state system (0, e, 1). You could just as easily represent this by a random variable corresponding to {1,2,3}.

You can fairly easily check numerically whether the behavior of your detector has correlations (i.e., the performance is not independent from sample to sample). It's very common, especially if your clock speed is significantly faster than the discharge time-constant of your detector, for the numerical correlation between consecutive detections to be smaller than the margin of error for the estimate (i.e., you can treat them as independent).

>>16799689
>What characterizes reality is "creativity."
>Something characterized in one way as the universe's trend towards increasing complexity.
>Towards expanding its possibilities and depths of interactions.
Nice head canon, but this is the wrong level of abstraction. You could argue that randomness/determinism either can create this impression.

>>16799741
This simply can't be the definition. There are so-called random processes that can be predicted. Double slit experiment. A population of samples also has characteristics. Yet, the particular location of a single sample is called random even though it can be arbitrarily bounded to some degree.

>>16797145
you can have an infinite number of dominoes that fall in predictable ways for infinity. Im not sure how you thought infinity has anything to do with anything. You can add 2 and 2 together forever and the answer will always be 4

File: cringe4.gif (1.97 MB, 380x285)

1.97 MB GIF

>>16798648
>he thinks RNGs are spitting out random numbers
I hope you arent a computer science guy. maybe try using jewgle before posting retarded shit. It doesnt require much effort

>>16800948
> There are so-called random processes that can be predicted. Double slit experiment.

You are confusing "we can predict the distribution of realizations" for "we can predict the outcome of a single realization."

> A population of samples also has characteristics. Yet, the particular location of a single sample is called random even though it can be arbitrarily bounded to some degree.

A set of random samples having defined characteristics as a set does not negate the sampling being random. Being able to predict the average value of a random variable does not mean the variable ceases to be random. There's even a whole family of "lower bounds" which tell you the best you can possibly do in terms of prediction/estimation error even if you know the exact distribution from which the random variable is drawn. You could know the exact distribution in a way which is completely idealistic and unrealistic, and you still won't have the ability to reliably predict the next realization of the random variable in any sort of exact fashion.

>Ask a quantum quack. They appear to worship quantum uncertainty as a sort of stand in for God. They truly believe they have found the Root of All. That something can indeed come from nothing.

He’s right you know