Pattern

before you say "i generated a random number" you need to say what distribution you're drawing from

If you're just stating that the world is deterministic without giving arguments you cannot expect people to take you serious.

902

>we merely lack the technology to understand and predict the movement of quantum particles
What is Bell's Theorem

Randomness is a property of complex nonlinear dynamical feedback systems.

T. Infinite regression shill

But then what's the inteference pattern we see?

I tend to agree and thanks.

Not him, but I can't believe that so many people think the universe isn't deterministic.

Infinite regression is almost certain, whether there's a patter in that regression is a whole different issue.

you don't get it, he is saying probability is deterministic as well as it is bound to physics

only what can happen, will happen.

Thats not random thats a german telephone number.

Me too, its funny.

If we allow idea of total chaos then all knowledge stops at certain stage after which laws break down...

That doesnt make sense.

Since Universe is a whole, either everything makes sense (once we understand it) or nothing can ever make sense.

There cannot be islands of deterministic Universe in absolute chaos, we may perceive it like that but only because those islands of deterministic Universe are actually islands of our contemporary knowledge as civilization. That creates illusion of things being not deterministic, but only because we dont see the pattern.

From Ultimate God's perspective Universe makes perfect sense and all cause-effect relationships are perfectly understood.

is the universe continuous or discrete?

>the universe is deterministic, not probabilistic
Well, at least we've solved the Fermi Paradox.
user clearly isn't of this Earth because no humane possesses this knowledge.
Or maybe user is just passing off his emotional-needs based belief as though it were fact.
hmmmmm.....

Also, computers are deterministic, even if the universe isn't, so there was no reason for his little tirade.

Autism, the post.

>I can't believe that so many people think the universe isn't deterministic.
And Einstein couldn't believe God plays dice with the universe.
Neither belief is scientific, and such discussions are best saved for when we're all gathered around the bong.

>Is random number generator actually creating numbers in a pattern but we cant see it cuz its to o big?
Assuming you mean an algorithmic PSEUDO-random number generator, then yes, it's a pattern too big to recognize.
In particular, the industry standard is to use a generalized Fibonacci sequence.
The starting numbers are the "seed", usually chosen by looking at the current time on the system clock.
In the olden days, before m=MS-DOS we would typically have the computer count up to a big number over and over, while waiting for a user keypress.
Whatever the count was when the user pressed a key was the seed.
Then we take every nth sample of the sequence, and base the next output value on that.
We also only store the values to a certain number of digits.

Like this:
Start with a seed of 9 and 37, use every 3rd value, and only store 2 digits to the left of the decimal:
Our sequence is:
9 37 46 83 29 12 41 53 94 47 41 88 29 17 46 63 9 72
And "every third digit" is:
46 12 94 88 46 72

Now imagine using 32-64 bits per number, and every 9th digit...

thanks, so we really havent achieved a true random number generator..

I wonder if creating AI will change this?

Or will it prove that nothing is random, not even human spitting random numbers (he might subconsciously follow a pattern).
I think that may be the case since what we perceive as random is often subconscious stimuli.

Like when you start singing a certain song, its not really random, often the lyrics are in sync with your emotional state or something you witnessed earlier that day.

>so we really havent achieved a true random number generator..
sure we have, we just haven't implemented it entirely in silico

you can get theoretically, truly random numbers if you use an external source of noise

1) maybe

youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0

youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

2) if the RNG is based on anything else than quantum events, like atmospheric noise, its not truly random

youtube.com/watch?v=SxP30euw3-0

youtube.com/watch?v=itaMNuWLzJo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

...

>Therom

i probably should have added this as well

thegreatcourses.com/courses/chaos.html

>you can get theoretically, truly random numbers if you use an external source of noise
Some software already does this for crypto keys using the sound-card mic input without a microphone to pick up RFI (radio frequency interference).
Though I'm sure half the OCD pedants here will still claim it's not "truly" random.

that's what i meant by "external source of noise"

Look here, true randomness.
qrng.anu.edu.au/

>OCD pedants here will still claim it's not "truly" random

of course its not

you probably wont be able to find any kind of pattern in these phenomena 1) with our current technology 2) in a reasonable amount of time, but its not truly random

its perfectly fine for all practical uses, but its not truly random

am i missing something?

>but its not truly random
before you decide whether something is truly random you need to describe what you mean by "random"

good vids, thanks, I am watching them.

dude, you're twisting my balls now

i guess im gonna go with this: random = something you cant predict with 100% probability

>of course its not
Found the OCD pedant.

what an acute observation, lol

>i guess im gonna go with this: random = something you cant predict with 100% probability
a random variable following a normal distribution would fit that definition but would be a disastrous choice for a seed for an RNG

>Supported by all experimental evidence

>the universe is deterministic, not probabilistic
yeah you can't say this with any kind of certainty m8.

that being said I do like the hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.

why?

because it sets some seeds as being more probable than others, increasing possibility of a successful attack

>it's not "truly" random
That's because it's not random, it's arbitrary.

I understand the anti-autism counter-culture you're trying to push here, but that doesnt change the definitions of words.

you can turn normal distribution into the flat one though, cant you?