Can we ever create a true random number generator?

I am not OP, but I am assuming:
non-causal
impossible to predict the outcome, even theoretically (with infinite computing power, perfect measurements...)
Such number generator could not even be predicted by Laplace's demon.

Such proposition looks ridiculous to me. I say: it is not possible to create such a generator.

"True Randomness" is not well defined.
Also I believe that nothing in nature is truly random.
It's a matter of "cutting edge" physics thus a matter of dispute.

existence is random

If a RNG isn't random then what number should I bet on it being?

a multiple of a real number between 0 and 1

it's funny because if there were a TRUE random number generator then there would be 0% chance of it being real

can we ever create a true meme generator?

yeah measure quantum spins n times to make an n digit binary number

so 3 times for a number between 000 and 111

Uw0t

Yea, by nuclear decay or this

Yes, just get a le randum xD teenage girl to give you a number

best answer

There is no way to know when a radioactive particle will decay-you could have a single atom of uranium sit in place doing nothing for 4 billion years or 2 minutes. It is absolutely random. Prove me wrong.

Measure literally any physical process that involves noise or a half-life.

Thermal noise, spin of prepared electron along an orthogonal axis, decay of radioactive material, etc

Here's the daily determinism thread.

Try von Neumann?
youtu.be/RPZ-uWirIN4

/thread

You can create your own true random number generator for about $50 with a cellphone geiger counter and some radioactive substance that emits beta radiation, like tritium glowlights. Then you just base your algorithm on the detections.

According to classical physics, no. Everything is declarative, so each state has exactly one state before and after it that it can move to. Quantum mechanics allows true randomness, not just classical randomness which is due to unknown variables.

Deterministic, not declarative

then all you need is an arduino-based ied, a box and a cat

I doubt any amount of Uranium-235 found on Earth would sit without change in mass for more than 100 years and that is a farsighted estimate.

Ha! Well, you'd have to put tape over the camera so the cat isn't observed, and the cat would be dead almost instantaneously anyway, unless you used something that decays far slower. And you'd need something quieter than an ied since hearing it go off would count as an observation. But I don't want to hurt any cats!

How does that preclude the randomness of when a single particle is going to decay?

yes you fucking brainlet, we have created a generator of truly random numbers 20 years ago, probably even earlier
you can even make your own for 2$

What about photon polarization superposition? Vacuum fluctuations?
Any measurment in QM can be used for true rng because measurements are not TR-symmetric.

Wrong the algorithm just has an incredibly large period but if you exhaust it all it is no longer random because it repeats

Assuming we had a complete model of the universe and a arbitrarily fast computer to process it, could we create a system for generating numbers that we could not predict?

Yes, if you never ask for more than one number.

kys retard

Yes user. In your hypothetical situation where you have universal omniscience that would make you God.
And if you've got a universal awareness you're already violating all kinds of physical laws.

>Uranium-235 has a half-life of 703.8 million years.

Isn't random just an unpredictable outcome? So a dice roll would be random unless for instance you build some kind of super computer sensor thingamajigy that can predict the outcome when the dice is still rolling. What I am trying to say is that unpredictability is in the eye of the beholder.

Sample the noise of the Universe and convert that.

There is, but if you ever look what the number is. You cease to exist.

True randomness is the stuff God can't figure out, either.

Randomness is in the mind, not out there in reality. The concept of "true randomness" is incoherent. There is no such thing as a random *process*; there are only processes that particular models can and cannot predict.

That's why he doesn't play dice, he's awful at it. If you want to know where all the antimatter went... god lost it playing craps.
Now Universe 4772-73xβ has twice as much antimatter as they should.

and the chance of it being a rational number also is exactly 0%. However, every time you run it, you get a number out of it, funny how that works.

as sad as it is, but Schrödingers cat is a bad example for an actual experiment. The cat constantly observes itself because it is not a single particle and hence there are constant interactions, which are effectively observations.

But if you make your setup consist of only the led and enclose it in a box, you would not be able to tell whether the led is on or off, so same thing I guess.

"there is no such thing as a truly random number" is the mathematical equivalent of *teleports behind you* *unsheathes katana* *it was a hologram*

>The cat constantly observes itself
Bullshit. Try to get a cat to look at itself in a mirror. It's physically impossible without dividing by zero while transitions to trans luminal speeds while finger banging singularities.

>can i make a distribution that's not a distribution?

this is how stupid you sound

we already have them. try googling "ring oscillator random number generator"

If you know a few parameters, you can predict the outcome of a dice roll. All real dice are also biased at least a little bit based on manufacturing defects and finite tolerances.

In other words, if you gave me 1/6 odds for predicting a dice roll and I had enough computers with me, I would end up making you bankrupt.

All possibilities have an equal chance of happening.

Sure, just base the seed off of a real world truly random variable :^)

Have a piece of radioactive material with a rapid half life connected to a Geiger counter and use the numbers generated as "Random."

That was not the argument I made. This is a philosophical question about randomness. I argued that randomness is in the eye of the beholder, not the universe. No matter how random things seem, they are only random until you find the pattern..

Define "define"

yes, but we would have to open the gate to another universe

Yes. Random = "you cannot predict". A flipped coin is a random variable until you looked at it.

its not random because it can be predicted/calculated

Randomness is subjective. Also, it exists on a spectrum.

Every thing can be predicted