What is the mathematical formula to generate a random number?

...

There's no formula to generate a random number. If it's a formula, it can be recreated under the same conditions and thus it's not random.

In computing, they generate "random" numbers by using the clock on the computer, or there is a program that uses solar wind frequencies. These aren't truly random either, but the conditions are harder, if not impossible to recreate.

>conditions are not impossible to recreate
If you use something like a decaying radioactive element and some kind of particle detector as your seed, the conditions are impossible to determine analytically before they occur. There is, as far as we know, no possible way to exactly predict quantum phenomena like this.

There's no such thing as true randomness. this is a consequence of godel's incompleteness theorem. next time, do some googling before you post.

>this is a consequence of godel's incompleteness theorem
Holy shit you're retarded

I was just reading about it actually before I made this post.

>There's no such thing as true randomness. this is a consequence of godel's incompleteness theorem
I didn't get that though

Ok, but all you did was offer another "solar wind" method. The number is still not random because it's generated on predetermined values.

A formula can not, by definition, generate a random number.

there is none.

Does this imply that the universe is either non-mathematical in nature, or it's actually deterministic?

A formula is by definition a set of consistent manipulations that will return some output as a function of the input. So you can only ever push the source input a step back by adding more formulas. Essentially - deterministic systems are deterministic. Big whoop.

The solar wind thing is NOT equivalent to just another deterministic layer if you pick the correct wind to measure. Specifically, quantum phenomena DO NOT HAVE A VALUE until observed. It's not a hidden or unkniwn variable that can potentially be determined ahead of time, it is a truly random input. There is no function governing the value of an individual electron's spin, for example. When you observe it, it is random input.

see "Non-mathematical" is a stupid term, because humans define what is mathematical and what isn't.

Everything in this universe is deterministic. Otherwise the laws of physics wouldn't exist.

Ok, how about "The universe is not governed by a single logically consistent system."

I think you're missing the point. Just because the output is seemingly hard to predict does not mean its random. At the point of observation, the number is now known, and thus when you input it into your function, the output is not random. It is expected based on the input. We are essentially arguing theory vs application. In practice, it will be near impossible to predict an outcome, but it's not, by definition, random.

This is a philosophical question. You asked if it's possible to generate a truly random value with a formula. It's not. Any inference you make based on that is your own.

The laws of physics aren't inherent to the universe. They describe behavior we've observed. Deterministic laws do not describe quantum phenomena we've observed. Your logic is backwards.

"quantum phenomena" is a ridiculously tiny portion of all the physical laws we uncovered that we know are deterministic. We don't have the equipment to test and measure all the particle physics tests with full accuracy, but going full retard like quantum theorists do and claiming that therefore there are particles that do random shit rather than admitting they can't understand or measure particles is just hilarious.

nothing is random.
there are just measurable values which we wouldn't be able to derive because we don't have accurate measurements of all of the relevant inputs

It amazes me that people who can't even guess something so simple as a coinflip since they can't measure all the variables pull randomness theories out of their asses about particles. This is no different than religions habits of filling the knowledge gaps with mystery and unscientific drivel.

>I think you're missing the point.
Right back at you. You are treating the seed variable as seperate from the function, and just restated what I already said - a function/formula is deterministic by definition. So to get a random output you need a random input - and random inputs exist, for example the spin of an electron passing through a detector at a certain point in time.

You can't have a "randomness" function, because all functions are built from deterministic steps. The outcome of a sequence of deterministic steps is invariably deterministic. HOWEVER, just because math is composed of logic and functions - and is therefore deterministic - does not mean that a truly random variable is impossible to produce.

The universe isn't deterministic, simple as that. On the quantum level everything is a probability distribution, yet any discrete interaction is truly random. When you sum a lot of random events that have a probability value, you get phenomena that can be approximated deterministically.

Give me an example of something that isn't deterministic with evidence.

It's a topic slightly too broad to explain on a mongolian underwater basketweaving newspaper.

you can just say no if you can't give a single example.

It is impossible to predict when a particle will decay. There is no discrete value function for the time, only a probability that the decay will decay at any instant of time.

And you're basing that on the fact that you have the equipment to detect every single variable in the composition of a particle? Are you claiming that you completely uncovered the building blocks of these particles?
Because otherwise you are just filling the knowledge gaps with some randomness magic.

Here, the simplest experiment that demonstrates the uncertainty principle:
quora.com/How-do-you-prove-the-Heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-experimentally

Do you really think you are the only person out there having problems accepting the idea that the universe has a "minimum resolution"? QM didn't just appear out of thin air. It was developed and tested ad nauseam by physicists the world over. Right now we're arguing in abstractions. If you want to actually understand what is going on, I'm afraid you're going to have to put in some work to actually learn the subject.

Double slit experiment is old as a tree now. There is no scientific deduction that anyone produced with solid evidence that these particles move randomly, whatever "randomly" means. The only "randomness" quantum physicists ever produced are from the tests that we had primitive equipment to test with.

Randomness itself is an impossible to prove concept since you can't put anything on the table that you can say here are the variables that effect particles random behaviour.

>random
>mathematical formula

Pick one

>rather than admitting they can't understand or measure particles is just hilarious.

The point is that the measurement is probalistic in nature, not that it's impossible, and this underlies all of reality.

You have to be Japanese to understand pseudo-random number generators. Are you?

エントロピ :^)

You can generate "truly" random numbers with this website. It doesn't use a pseudorandom number generator, instead it uses atmospheric noise.

randomDOTorg

Roll several die, each dice represents a digit in base 6. now covert back to base 10. Or use quarters and base 2. Every number from 0 to 6^n-1 should have an even distribution as there is only 1 way to express them if each die represents a different place value.

So what if its old? Newton cradles are old. Does that mean inertia is obsolete? The dse is a standard for a reason. You get an interference for where a particle will be proability wise. Thats all. You cant argue against it pal its literally a result of a test. What are you going to do ignore it?

Just use pi you dumbfucks, it is well know but legit

you skipped all the parts about double slit not proving anything...

lool theres none
>you all been fooled into randomness meme

you piss in a ziplock bag, then weigh it and take the 0.000X digit for its weight in grams.

Nuclear desintegration

throw an infinite number of coins in the air and count the number of heads

Would I be correct in thinking that you're claiming that QM is actually deterministic and that there are simply elements of it that we are missing that would enable us to fully predict the results?

Because scientists have considered the possibility that there are some 'hidden variables' that govern these processes that we simply haven't measured or figured out yet, but it turns out that many of them possess consequences that are not true. See Bell's theorem.

t. classical brainlet