/sci/ - Science & Math

Are there no equations that produce true randomness?

One half. Either it's truly random or it's not.

>>14675724
>how do you prove that something is TRULY random?
Show it's not computable by a deterministic turing machine

>>14675731
Nope. But there are equations that mimic randomness such that the generated values appear random to all the typical mathematical tests (correlation etc). They are called pseudorandom functions and if you know any coding you will have encountered one in the rand() function.

>>14675724
The chaotic "randomness" of everything is just a byproduct of uncountable amounts of interacting particles and forces, which can all be reliably predicted with sufficient technology. The universe is never "random".

it’s true that classical systems, like dice or computers, only produce “pseudorandom” numbers.

however, the consensus of physics over the last 100 years are that quantum processes can be genuinely random. that is why you can buy “quantum” random number generators online, which generate random numbers by making a measurement of some quantum process.

a simple example (not one that you would buy as the cheapest option) is something like a geiger counter reading out near a radioactive sample. the physics of radioactive decay, which is well confirmed, is that decays occur truly randomly. so a geiger counter that clicks whenever a radioactive decay occurs is clicking truly randomly according to well-established physics

>>14675724
Anything you couldn't predict given all the available information is random. That's kinda the definition of random.
At 100% information... how could anything be random?

you need to take your meds, fast.

>>14675776
something is not truly random simply because we cannot comprehend it.

>>14675776
If I spent all day pressing random numbers on my key board, and then starting a new one every 5 minutes,

How would those numbers not be random?

>>14675861
Because every action you take is determined by a set of variables in your cells and environment, that if measured, would bely which keys you would press.

>>14675724
probability not only serves to characterize stochastic events, but can also be used to describe uncertainty about determnistic unobserved events.
For instance, when someone says OP has a 50% chance of being gay, it could mean half the time he is gay or that they hold a 50% belief of OP being 100% gay all the time.

>>14675724
The laws of physics, even and especially quantum mechanics, are deterministic.

Yes we haven’t solved the “measurement problem” yet (why measurement results appear random), but from the properties of the equations - which have been confirmed to hold in experiments to ridiculous precision - any kind of true randomness must come from somewhere else.

>>14675751
Does this include periodicity? All pseudorandom functions are periodic, while randomness is not.

>>14675776
quantum processes appear "truly" random because quantum particles exist simultaneously in all possible dimensions (ie "states"), and we cannot know which of those dimensions we are experiencing until they are measured.

>>14675811
this is not even a meds conversation this is a genuinely deep and troubling line of inquiry that begs an answer I would say

>>14675861
you're usually not truly random. even if i can't predict exactly what you'll press, i can still probably predict better than random chance which is significant. maybe with a sufficiently good brain scan it could be possible to exactly predict what you'd press.
but even with that, if you press "random keys" likely you'll be pressing ones near the home row. it's more likely you'd be hitting letters than numbers, etc.

>>14675892
But this is like chicken or the egg superposition probability distribution wave function collapse stuff and let me say why before you get unerved.

If you say, try to type random string of numbers on the keyboard I bet you can't.

There is a minimum and maximum I can physically type at once. And by the very challenge I am nessecarilly being forced to at every step pick 1 or so of a very finite amount of options. Before I choose a number it is superposition, we dont know what number I will choose, it literally could be any.

But it is forcing to choose a number, so I deffinitly will pick a specific number first. But I can't pick them all at once ( because it's a sequence)

So no matter which I choose you will always say I was determined to choose that.

If I choose every number at the same time over and over than what

I know I still may not be right but I'm tying and do you see what I'm getting at.

The source of the determining factor is the fact I can only possibly pick one number at a time 1-9

Whatever number I choose I can't possibly pick the other ones. It doesn't matter what determined me to pick one or the other because I can choose any of them equally, there's nothing forcing me to pick a certain one over a certain other one, besides at the end of it me throwing my hands in the air and saying any will do

>>14675979
how can you be certain of non-periodicity? on the scale of infinity, a tremendously large set which appears random may have regularity at some point. it's unfalsifiable.

>>14676021
>>14675892
And wouldn't random in a string of numbers just mean; following no discernable pattern?

>>14676023
8472847291929928473728274738284737372626273827492748599q6535374937666374836273838383838383838383838388888888888111111182727372727372277384859383636485938263748593827374859473737484849993338883388833388833488833888339392939393930999999999999116361717173234568876543456789877543345987654445678225588338844234567898764213579998988876664378848848484628362847362728372525638495959595959595999922277223673562363737383937373839393938393939381881188181828282828282282882828228822882828282822828828282828282949595959595959595859595938495836839573957385839478833764488337744883377448373625274884477448844774499477449847383947384738473847384739473847384738473999999999999933339999999999993333999999999999999999399999994999999992999999995999999919996999599949997999399995959595959959999393937737737773777377737838883877377377353735373637366666262536363636363637772253725636253662536246625362466352637777464747747774637473848297488483883847738828283993958827288882773884836633774452957492937483838272947823443399583628394837262637384884837273388849492827378493838272884883837328849939291929484757839938487588382993841111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112221111111111111111111112111111111811911111111561111111111111111151616111111111111111981717181711111111111111111111111111111111111111111111771718111111111111111111111111111111111111111415165161111111111161111111777111111111111881818181881818181818111111111111111111141516718111111111114155161717811111111111111112222211111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111121111111111111111122221211

>>14676029
i guess it depends on what we mean when we use the word random.
a coinflip is random because the outcome is not reliably predictable. (assuming an unmodified coin).
but, the "outcome" is not decided until the coin has stopped flipping and landed. and all the physical effects on the coin are potentially knowable after the coin has been tossed but before it has landed. "calling it in the air" could potentially be accurately calculated before the coin hits the ground.
the rate of spin on the coin, the upward velocity, the distance to the ground, etc.

>>14676036
probably you did it with two hands on the number row, rather than on the keypad. 8, 4, 7, 2, indicate that you started with your right hand, did one key press, and then did one with your left hand, and repeated.

>>14675724
what if all processes are random. and we interpret them as patterns. like
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 could be random.

>>14675724
We can't "know" but there is no evidence that it isn't random and behaves as though it is random 100% of the time, so for all intents and purposes it can be treated as truly random

>>14675724
You can’t. Classically everything is deterministic and I’m not convinced that there is no such deterministic nature to the quantum realm as well, even if it may appear to be some kind of probabilistic soup without rhyme or reason.

2 nukes weren't enough

>>14676038
I geuss the string of numbers is different because It could be something large you approach and see after it was made. The difference between measuring every physical aspect of during it's creation, and observing only the finished product and saying, was this made with intention or not. Is there coherent data in here, if yes or no was it implied,

>>14675724
Radioactive decay is random, although it obviously still follow laws but no one can predict when an atom will decay, no matter how much information you have about it prior to its decay

>>14675724
>how can it be known that quantum phenomena which appear random, are not actually mediated by some yet unknown cause?
They do have a cause: things are only probabilistic when you're treating some parts of the system classically and others quantum mechanically. If you treat everything quantum mechanically, there is no randomness.

>>14676274
Yes there is.
Outcomes don't all exist in some other world. Only the outcome actually seen is what actually happens and no other state exists in any possible world.
Everette's paper is not interesting

>>14675752
>Never had physics or chemistry.

>>14675724
>how do you prove that something is TRULY random?
You can't because at the bottom of it, the whole concept of randomness springs out of the need to reason about possible outcomes in the absence of information. It's a mathematical formalizaion of a perspective of undecidability, and the key word here is "perspective". It's not about some true underlying nature of the things being modeled, but the nature of trying to reason about them with incompete information.

>>14677443
>the whole concept of randomness springs out of the need to reason about possible outcomes in the absence of information
I disagree. Randomness has to do with whether there exists a deterministic mechanism that guides the behavior or evolution of the system. It's not about knowledge or lack thereof

>>14677458
>Randomness has to do with whether there exists a deterministic mechanism that guides the behavior or evolution of the system.
Randomness is used to model systems regardless of whether or not they are deterministic, and empirically, there is no test for "true" randomness because it has no testable criteria.
>inb4 muh Bell's theorem
Proves nothing if you reject locality.

>>14677473
We have tests for randomness what do you mean? You're right that these tests can be used to analyze systems regardless of whether or not they're random, but the conversation is about what it would take for a function/process to be truly random.
Why is it not possible for a process to be truly random (i.e. there does not exist any deterministic algorithm to describe it's process/it's not a matter of lack of our knowledge, but that the process literally is just not determined by any mechanistic deterministic rule)

>>14677481
>We have tests for randomness what do you mean?
And we have cryptographic-quality PRNGs that pass these tests because they are merely statistical tests.

>the conversation is about what it would take for a function/process to be truly random
If we're talking about "true randomness" in a mathematical context, then again, it has nothing to do with determinism. If we're talking about "true randomness" in the real world, then look at your own definition: it has a negative rather than a positive nature, and in this case, it really is that you can't prove a negative.

>Why is it not possible for a process to be truly random
I didn't say it's not possible. I said there is no reliable test for it.

>>14677499
What do you mean by "you can't prove a negative" in this case? It is possible to prove that there does not exist deterministic algorithms to perform certain processes.

>>14677501
>What do you mean by "you can't prove a negative" in this case?
I mean since your definition of randomness has no positive qualities, but only stands in contrast to determinism, to prove that a process is "truly random" would mean to disprove the possibility that there's something hidden behind the scenes controlling the outcome, which you can never truly accomplish.

>It is possible to prove that there does not exist deterministic algorithms to perform certain processes.
No idea what you're saying. You can prove that certain problems are undecidable. That doesn't mean certain processes are "truly random".

>>14675732

>>14677510
undecidable = random in physics

>>14677531
>undecidable = random in physics
Define "undecidable" and explain what it has to do with physics.

>>14677534
If some physical system or phenomena can not be modeled by any effectively calculable function

>>14677545
>If some physical system or phenomena can not be modeled by any effectively calculable function
How do you prove that? It just circles back to this:
>to prove that a process is "truly random" would mean to disprove the possibility that there's something hidden behind the scenes controlling the outcome, which you can never truly accomplish.

>>14677548
yea I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm taking more of a pragmatist approach in this sense, which is not necessarily correct, although maybe it is, I don't know.
Anyway good talk anon have a good day

The configuration of quantum entanglement

>>14677553
>I'm taking more of a pragmatist approach in this sense
The pragmatist approach in this case is to say "it's currently indistinguishable from randomness, so it might as well be random" which just leads naturally to the mathematical perspective on randomness.

Let's say that the configuration of quantum entanglement was not truly random. That means that there's some predictable mechanics going on, and since it could be predicted, in theory we could use quantum entanglement to send information faster than light.

So it seems that either we have true randomness or a theoretical possibility to send information faster than light. If one is false, the other is true, and vice versa.

>>14677570
>That means that there's some predictable mechanics going on, and since it could be predicted, in theory we could use quantum entanglement to send information faster than light.
Explain.

>>14675724
Your premise is rank sophistry.
You start with the belief in the whole of determinism, then occlude everything that isn't determined to conclude the non-evidentiary story that a coin flip "could" be determined.
If you could determine a coin flip then why can't you determine a coin flip? Belief in a story of determinism does not impart a conservation of the story that would admit determinism.

Stop lying to yourself. If you change the conditions of the flip so that it is easier to determine, then it is not a coin flip any more. If you can't determine a coin flip every time, it is not determined.
If you can only go back and determine why a particular coin flip ended that way, that doesn't mean that future coin flips can be determined.

Different determinations is not a determination; it is stochastic.

Finally, your understanding of QM is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM
This is a you tube video on Bell's Theorem. Bell's inequality shows us that there CANNOT be a determinism behind QM.

The Platonism on this board sickens me. Being blind is not insight.

>>14677595
You just posted some military-grade cringe.

>>14677572
The idea in QE is that when the entangled particles are created, they have not yet decided which configuration they have. By that I mean the state of each particle; which can be thought of as 1 or 0. If one particle was measured to be 1, you would know instantly that the other particle is 0 or vice versa. The important point is that the physical measurement of either particle causes the particles to decide which one is 1 and which one is 0. Before that measurement they are in superposition.

If the process of going from superposition into 1 or 0 was not truly random, it could be predicted. For example, to illustrate what I mean, a coinflip could be made non-random if you used some predictable physics and calculations to carefully flip the coin to always land in a certain position. That's how we know that in reality a coin flip is not "truly" random. You could do the same with QE.

If you caused the entangled particles to be configured in a predictable way by using the underlying mechanics and calculations as your tool, you could, for instance, decode "hello world" into the states of the particles, and you could send that message faster than light.

>>14677616
>If the process of going from superposition into 1 or 0 was not truly random, it could be predicted.
But if it could be predicted, it would be predicted by both parties in advance, thus no information would be communicated, no?

>>14675724
There's a difference between truly random and pseudo-random. The pseudo-random is what you want when you're doing cryptography because you always have a defined period over which you don't want to be able to have the sequence reconstructed. So if you are getting say 10,000 32-bit numbers front any sequence generator you want them all to be distributed such that if you have five thousand numbers of the sequence You can predict the next five thousand. The problem with this is that it seems like a truly random generator over over any finite interval would be capable of producing any output for example a generator that produces 10,000 unique integers could produce all ones. That would be a random sequence if the generator were truly random. However that sort of random sequence is not useful because it doesn't have certain properties where we consider a type of pseudo Randomness more important than actual randomness. So I don't know how you would prove it off hand but if your sampling something over a finite interval I have no idea how you could distinguish that set of samples being random versus non-random. If you think about it this way: any random series of events could be identical to a series of events that are determined.

>>14677560
>The pragmatist approach in this case is to say "it's currently indistinguishable from randomness, so it might as well be random" which just leads naturally to the mathematical perspective on randomness.
I would say not only "currently", it is related to the theory of computation.
The pragmatist/computational approach is connected to the P = NP question. Strong RNGs exists, if P != NP. From an onthological point of view, the "pragmatist" approach makes sense: If a polynomial TM can't distinguish between a sequence from an sRNG and a "true random sequence" with better then negligible probabilty, then what is the (onthological) point of claiming "true randomness" of an event, I mean one needs some kind of classification criteria.

>>14675724
Whether true randomness exists is an open question (and one we will probably never answer).

>>14677627
Undecidable problems in computation have nothing to do with unpredictable processes in physics, anon. You're making a mess.

>>14677627
The problem with this approach is that it only really distinguishes pseudo random sequences based on finitary observation. Let's say you had a sequence generator with a period of trillions of years that generated trillions of 32-bit numbers every millisecond. Say you capture 10,000 of those integers. They could very well appear non-random just like how if you roll two dice it's possible that you get two threes it's just less likely than the sum of all the other combinations. So over a very long period it's entirely possible you would get 10,000 ones. So I think that the issue here is that true Randomness you would never know if what you were sampling was random or not because a random generator can by definition produce any output oh, it's just a certain outputs are not good over finite periods if your say using those outputs to do certain cryptographic functions. But I can't for the life of me think why there's some bar to a random number generator that has a very long span producing the equivalent of rolling six on a dice three times in a row. I mean it's rare but it's certainly not saying you're dice aren't random is it?

>>14677636
I disagree. Whenever you predict an event / the outcome of an experiment, you do that by a computation. Physics and theoretical computer science are directly related, in my opinion.

>>14677621
The thing is that if only one particle is measured, that causes both of the particles decide which way they are. If you could measure one set of particles in such a way that they would predictably decode "hello world", that would send the message faster than light into the other set of particles.

>>14677672
Okay, I get that, but we already know that Bell's theorem disproves local hidden variables, so a deterministic world doesn't abide by the principle of locality. In such a world, to predict the outcome of the wave collapse you'd basically have to predict everything else as well, and since the world is deterministic, both parties could predict the entire future, including what messages would be sent and when, so again, no real information exchange would be taking place.

>>14677657
>So I think that the issue here is that true Randomness you would never know...
Yes. The problem is the word "true", what does "true randomness" mean. The point of that computational view is imho that there is no criteria for that "true", no practicle way of distinguish an event which appears to be random due to hidden variables or chaotic behaviour etc. from an event which is "truly random" (whatever that means). So I would argue that "true" randomness has no well defined onthological state and it makes no sense to talk about it in the first place.

>>14677682
So you're sort of saying that there's an infinite number of variables that affect the outcome of wf-collapse. That's deep

>>14677636
Yes they do
>>14677661
It's not your opinion, it is a fact.
If some physical system/evolution/whatever can not be effectively computed on any DTM to arbitrary precision, it's not deterministic.

>>14677714
No, I'm saying that your problem doesn't apply in a deterministic world because making the prediction would require perfect information, and if you have perfect information, nothing is being communicated either way.

>>14677751
NTA but what does it mean to have perfect information?

>>14677723
>Yes they do
No, they don't.

>If some physical system/evolution/whatever can not be effectively computed on any DTM to arbitrary precision, it's not deterministic.
Wrong and that's not what "undecidable" means in computation theory. Become, brainlet.

>>14677753
It means you know everything that influences the outcome, and since the principle of locality is not compatible with a deterministic world, you pretty much have to take the entire state of the universe into account to predict that wave collapse. In other words, you know everything, you can predict everything and nothing is being communicated.

>>14677755
I'm not saying that's what undecidable means in computation. I'm saying if a physical system can not be decided to arbitrary precision by a DTM, it's not deterministic.

>>14677769
If you had the entire state of the universe and all the natural laws, you still would not be able to calculate a future state of the universe to arbitrary precision. Its not deterministically computable.

>>14677779
>I'm saying if a physical system can not be decided to arbitrary precision by a DTM, it's not deterministic.
How do you prove this about a physical system? lol

>>14677787
Stay in your lane, brainlet.

>>14677795
Cope brainlet. The universe does not evolve deterministically which means that even having all knowledge of all particles and forces, you can not predict to arbitrary precision a future state.
Calling me a brainlet doesn't change this fact and you can cry about it all you want, it's still not possible.

>>14677816
>The universe does not evolve deterministically
Prove it, brainlet. I was only addressing the other anon's argument that a deterministic universe violates causality through entangelement.

>>14677817
>Prove it, brainlet
okay, for example: the decay of a radioactive particle is not governed by any deterministic mechanism. This is not a matter of us "not knowing all the relevant information states", there does not exist any deterministic mechanism guiding decay.
The universe does not evolve deterministically and can't be modeled by a finite set of deterministic rules. Crying about this and calling me a brainlet doesn't change this.

>>14677821
>the decay of a radioactive particle is not governed by any deterministic mechanism
LOL. Prove it. You're like 10 steps behind in this discussion...

>>14677830
>LOL. Prove it. You're like 10 steps behind in this discussion...
Prove it's deterministic, you're the one claiming that there is a deterministic mechanism guiding decay. Me claiming "there does not exist a deterministic mechanism" does not need proof much like "there does not exist a god" doesn't need proof; the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
You will never have a unified field theory

>>14677841
>the decay of a radioactive particle is not governed by any deterministic mechanism
That's a claim you made. Still waiting for proof of this claim.

>>14677692
>So I would argue that "true" randomness has no well defined onthological state and it makes no sense to talk about it in the first place.

I would say it is more an epistemic issue given the finitary nature of observation.

Random, it seems to me, just means that the event is not predicated of prior events; there is a "rupture." Even if I know every possible fact about the world up to the putative random event, it is impossible for me to determine the outcome, ontologically, if that makes sense.

The epistemological issue is whether it is possible to know whether something is random or nonrandom. We can define "random" to mean something about a sequence of bits over a finite period, but this does not foreclose the possibility that a generator with a much longer period would generate a sequence that appears "nonrandom" over a finite period.

The trite example is a generator which generates [1,1]. This also involves the sorites problem. If [1,1] isnt enough to say it is nonrandom, is [1,1,1]? When do we add enough 1s for the it to "become a heap"?

But over a sufficiently long period, with enough output, there is no reason that a generator might not, for example, output the complete works of Shakespeare. If your generator did that over a period of the same length as the works of Shakespeare, OK, that is pretty flukey, but if the period were, say, trillions upon trillions of entries, and all outputs were equally likely (another way to think about randomness), then it would eventually have to simply output the works of Shakespeare.

Actually, that is another way to think about randomness: every output is equally likely. The Math used to test for that looks to see if some outputs are more likely, but if every output is equally likely, as the period goes to infinity, the probability of a finite period appearing "nonrandom" (to a finite observer) seems to increase.

>>14677816
>The universe does not evolve deterministically

I think you could say "we do not know if the universe is deterministic or random," but saying "it is not deterministic" is a bit much.

>>14677846
Until you provide a deterministic mechanism, one can not be said to exist.
You'll never find a deterministic mechanism because it's not deterministic but whatever. Religious people like yourself don't care for proof for your beliefs, this is known. It still doesn't make you right.

>>14677855
>Until you provide a deterministic mechanism, one can not be said to exist.

You're conflating a legal idea of proof with how science proceeds. The very basis to the scientific method is induction, which has no rigorous proof of the sort you are offering, so this sounds to me more like skepticism about induction, which is a fine thing, but it applies to all scientific knowledge.

"So you saw baking soda react with vinegar N times and make bubbles, why does that mean it has to the N+1th time?"

You could liken the "faith" (hope for things unseen) that it will make bubbles the N+1th time to religion, but it seems to me that there is something qualitatively different about inductive reasoning vs. religious faith.

Things looks pretty deterministic. You hit your head with a hammer hard enough, it makes a hole. That's why you don't hit your head with a hammer (or one reason), is that religious faith? What's the "mechanism"? There's only an inductive argument that hitting your head with a hammer makes a hole, based on observation, but who says those observations ground a "mechanism"?

>>14677850
It's literally not deterministic. There are plenty of inherently random phenomena, and no, they are not "secretly deterministic".
There is no evidence to indicate that the universe is describable in a finite program/there is no evidence to indicate that the universe can be modeled to arbitrary precision with mathematics.

>>14677864
>Things looks pretty deterministic.

If I take a piece of wood, carve a channel in it, and prop it at a 45 degree angle, and pour water into the channel, it flows down the channel, it doesn't flow up the channel.

The rain seems to make the ground wet. All of these are observations that are susceptible to your "provide a mechanism" attack, you can always say "that is not a mechanism, that is just a bunch of observations, what is the mechanism that says those observations amount to a mechanism?" And so on ad infinitum. Metatheoretic skepticism is fine, but I don't think it really serves much purpose to set a "default position" of "things are not deterministic," because you would have the same metatheoretic problem providing the mechanism by which that view is grounded.

>>14677868
>There are plenty of inherently random phenomena

Over a finite period that appear random, but it could be that their periodicity emerges over a longer observation period.

Let's say the collected works of Shakespeare are 100kB.

I can run a random number generator my whole life, never get Bill Shakespeare's collected works out of it. If I run that generator for trillions of years, Shakespeare's works must eventually emerge, no? And if I were a local observer while that is happening, I would probably conclude that it is not, in fact, a random generator, but that there was some sort of "intelligence" producing the output.

>>14677868
>There is no evidence to indicate that the universe is describable in a finite program/there is no evidence to indicate that the universe can be modeled to arbitrary precision with mathematics.

"The universe" is ill-defined, in terms of a "universe of discourse," because nothing contains everything, e.g. if you are talking about some set-theoretic modelling. If your argument is that there are going to be language completeness problems re: models (e.g. Goedel, etc.) then that is more an epistemic issue than it is an issue that says 'things cannot be deterministic,' it could be the case that they are, we just cannot prove that they are.

>>14677877
>I can run a random number generator my whole life

By this I mean something that was truly random, not a PRNG that is designed to provide certain putative "statistical randomness" over a finite period.

>>14677885
If you believe something that can't be proven and for which there is no real evidence for (and there is strong evidence against) then you're holding a religious position. Which is completely fine, I'm not against religions, but I am against people pretending to be something that they're not.
If you hold onto a belief of determinism you are holding a religious/spiritual belief. It's okay if you want to believe that the universe is deterministic but this is not actually supported by evidence and it is not the rational/logical/empirically justified belief.

So determinism makes truly random impossible and people seethe and cope about this?

>>14677904
How can you run a truly random number generator if the universe does not contain some elements that evolve truly randomly?
>>14677912
It's the opposite. The idea that some phenomena/physical systems evolve in a way that is not deterministic (i.e. can't be modeled to arbitrary precision by mathematics) makes some people angry because it implies that we can't use science or math to understand the universe to arbitrary precision.

>>14677855
>the decay of a radioactive particle is not governed by any deterministic mechanism
That's a claim you made. Still waiting for proof of this claim, homo. Why no proof?

>>14677909
>and there is strong evidence against

What is the strong evidence against? Most of our daily lives are deterministic. We hit the gas and the car goes VOOM! We hit the brake and it halts.

I suspect that your 'strong evidence against' is some sort of very specific experiment on a lab bench that gets generalized contrary to daily experience.

Trying to say "your daily experience of determinism is false because of a lab experiment" is pretty silly IMO, it is more akin to religion, if that is what you are trying to argue against.

What is this 'strong evidence against'?

>>14677919
>How can you run a truly random number generator if the universe does not contain some elements that evolve truly randomly?

Well, I am saying there is no way to really know if something is deterministic or random, though my gut feeling is that lots of things are either determinstic, or only random over a period much longer than anything we can observe.

For example, you could think of the universe as a raincloud, which appears like a highly chaotic system, and imagine the first time people got rained on as thought experiment. Blue sky, suddenly these white things appear and its like "WTF!" But really, even though rain is very chaotic, there is a preiodicity to it. But from within a single rainstorm it can seem like there is no end in sight, etc.

>>14677930
Why no proof of determinism? You're the one claiming that things are deterministic despite there being an example (radioactive decay) that is not deterministic. Same with the evolution of an N-body system, etc.

>>14677919
>How can you run a truly random number generator if the universe does not contain some elements that evolve truly randomly?

IMO there are two problems here, one is the ontological problem of randomness, "does randomness exist?" and then there is the epistemological problem "can we know if things are random?"

There is no reason I can think off, offhand, why everything should be knowable. There could be things that are true, but cannot be known, in the sense of "justified" or "proved."

>>14677940
>being an example (radioactive decay) that is not deterministi

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed.[2][3][4] However, for a significant number of identical atoms, the overall decay rate can be expressed as a decay constant or as half-life. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have a huge range; from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay))

Something doesn't add up.

Sounds more like we don't know how to predict (or it is impossible to predict, e.g. unknowable) for a single atom, but if a pattern emerges in aggregate, seems like there is something deterministic going on.

>>14677940
>Same with the evolution of an N-body system, etc.

The solar system is an N-body system, and its elements seem to be involved in predictable, periodic relations.

>>14675724
>how exactly the coin is flipped, air movement, etc. it's only "incalculably random" in the moment.

Yes, I too watched Devs.

>>14675724
Depends what you mean by "TRULY random".

If you use probability in a purely formal way with no interpretation, an event is truly random simply by assigning a probability distribution to it.

If you use probability to model unknowns, then as long as you personally don't know enough about how the coin is flipped, the coin flip is truly random for you.
If I believe that coin flips are independent from each other and the the coin is fair, I should believe that there's a 25% of flipping two heads in a row.
If I believe that coin flips are independent from each other but that heads has a 49% and tails has a 51%, then I should believe that there's a 24.01% of flipping two heads in a row.

If you use probability to model the "true" randomness of events, then you have to figure out if the universe even supports truly random events in the first place and which events are truly random.
Knowing for sure (like anything in science) is impossible, but if modeling the event as truly random conforms with the experimental data (like some quantum phenomena or radioactive decay), then thinking about the event as truly random is arguably useful whether or not the event is truly random or just the outcome of something we haven't figured out yet.
I don't really like this approach for "regular scale" events though. Figuring out if a coin flip is random and its distribution would require us to work our way up from the quantum level for the coin, the hand flipping the coin, and the brain sending the signal to flip the coin. But doing that is practically impossible. I have no idea how to calculate the probability of any given coin flip that way.

define "random"

>>14677849
I agree. I think we see it more ar less the same way:

-- There must be a criterion to distuingish "true" randomness (empirically). --

This leads to computability. It seems (crypto works, for example) that there is no way to decide if an event is "truly" random or just looks random (caused by some one-way-function or something). Therefor "true randomness" has no ontological state, (and therefor of course no epistemic procedure).

>>14677769
You don't need to have perfect information in order to predict something. If you knew all the variables involved in coin flip (mass, velocity, force, etc) to a high precision, you could pretty much predict the outcome of every coin flip but you would not need to know the precise amount of particles the coin is made of or something like that.

>>14677940
>You're the one claiming that things are deterministic
Exce[t I wasn't, so your desperate attempt to deflect falls flat. LOL.

>>14678061
>If you knew all the variables involved in coin flip
Right. Now read the post you're replying to again. The utter, final, teminal state of this board.

>>14677443
>You can't because at the bottom of it, the whole concept of randomness springs out of the need to reason about possible outcomes in the absence of information. It's a mathematical formalizaion of a perspective of undecidability, and the key word here is "perspective". It's not about some true underlying nature of the things being modeled, but the nature of trying to reason about them with incomplete information.

yup.

when it involves significant things, you basically have to admit that it's involving models outside your competence and stay out.
The reversal; is if the model happens to be in some specialized area of your competence, in which you see significant underlying models that the public must concede as random.

>>14678227
There's no deflection, if you can't produce a deterministic mechanism for decay, then accept that the universe is not deterministic.

>>14675724
Randomness is a code word for human ignorance, repeated so often that it colonized the minds of otherwise intelligent individuals.
Everything is causative and nothing is truly random.

>>14678489
>There's no deflection
Then why won't you prove your claim, tranny? lol

>>14677624
>any random series of events could be identical to a series of events that are determined.
No because this all gets to the idea of LAW and that the universe is ordained by unbreakable ones.

If noone in the world ever broke the human made laws, there would be no crime, crime is akin to randomness.

In physics breaking the law would be supernatural.

But even if laws in physics are broken, they are only broken in our perspective of ignorance of the absolute laws, the universe is 1:1 itself and can do no wrong.

I am of the correct opinion that: everything besides Mind like objects are absolutely determined, and only mind like objects to degrees can escape determinism, as suggested here:

>>14671958
>>14676259

>>14679096
>No because
>>14677624
Ok actually I may take it back and see you are saying it's possible to escape determinsm, if we looked out in the cosmos and started seeing cartoonishly weird things occur everything going crazy and not making sense, it still can never be escaped that the exact reason for every possible occurance must have an exact cause which forces it to occur

>>14675724
>how can it be known that quantum phenomena which appear random
You're confused. Quantum phenomena are defined to be random, and these definitions are part of models found to be more successful than deterministic models.

>>14679096
This is gibberish, take your meds.

>>14675724
If you disprove known deterministic models, then it will be random to our best knowledge.

>>14679115
Random model is a failure though. Deterministic model works much better.

>>14677940
An N-body system obeys deterministic mathematical model, therefore its evolution is deterministic.

>>14679115
Randomness = ignorance

Determine = knowledge

>>14680247
Yeah?

>>14678582
What claim? That we don't have a deterministic model for decay? That's already known in physics.
If you are claiming that there exists a deterministic mechanism for decay, then provide it. Stop pooping your pants and provide the deterministic model

>>14680137
>An N-body system obeys deterministic mathematical model
It doesn't

>>14681365
>An N-body system obeys deterministic mathematical model
>It doesn't
Because it doesn't? Or because it's too complicated to know the doesness of it's does?

>>14675731
No, but there are things which are "random enough" for the job.
Looking at computers and encryption of network traffic, they call a pseudo random number generator too encrypt the traffic with. It's not truly random, since you can get the exact same number everytime if you know the seed.

>>14676036
Waaaaaaaay too many of the same digit in a row to be random lol

>>14675724

>>14682365
But then not....

There are only 9 numbers. There is not enough distance

How many random possible strings of numbers exist between 0 and 999 ?

>>14675724
Nothing is truly random, even "probabilistic" quantum systems are just the extreme limit of nonlinear dynamics.

>>14681350
We have a deterministic model for decay: ψ(t)=exp(-t/T)|1>+(1-exp(-t/T))|0>.

>>14681365
It does. Positions of bodies give the value of forces, forces divided by mass give accelerations, acceleration integrated by time give next positions of bodies. All of this is deterministic math. Learn math, schizo.

>>14675724
You cannot. We don't even know if quantum mechanics are random, or if there's an even smaller universe in the quantum foam that influences us despite our inability to observe it.

>>14683712
999! I think

>>14683827
lmfao no we don't. This model can't be used to predict decay to arbitrary precision
No, taking all the possible values as existing in some possible world despite only ever finding one value when you perform a measurement will never be an answer no matter how much you desire it to be.

>>14683841
https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00429965/file/dynsys.pdf

>>14685076
Not being able to measure something does not mean something has no measurement

Everything we know of has a measurement
That is substantial evidence what we can't measure has a measurement

>>14681350
>That we don't have a deterministic model for decay?
There it's not deterministic. What models we have is irrelevant. Notice how desperately you deflect. Reflect on it. Realize it's a sign you lost the debate and stop posting. :^)

Whether or not something is random is not an empirical truth that is proved by evidence. Rather, random is an analytic property of things we cannot (or do not) predict.

So, a dice roll is random. If you had enough information then you could reliably calculate the outcome. But since you don't have that information, and you don't do that calculation, then it is random.

>>14675724
no randomness only exist at the quantum level due to super positions

>>14686232
quantum randomness can affect the real world; for example, the output of a quantum TRNG can be used to generate a password or an AES key or decide who wins the lottery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Quantum_random_properties

>>14686248
>>14675724
I guess that counts as proof for true randomness

>>14686292
It doesn't since it's impossible to prove that the wave collapse is truly random.

>>14686307
ok than true randomness only exist at the quantum level lol at least until someone proves otherwise bc super position aren't predictable in the sense that we know what can happen but not which one

>>14686336
>true randomness only exist at the quantum leve
Prove it.

>>14686336
If true randomness exists at the quantum level, then it necessarily exists at all levels, because over long enough periods even the tiniest fluctuations will have cumulative effects, making predicting anything impossible even if you had infinite precision. See Chaos theory.

>>14686381
>over long enough periods even the tiniest fluctuations will have cumulative effects
Wrong.

>>14686395
Prove it by predicting the weather in New York City in front of the Empire State Building at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2035.

>>14686398
Completely irrelevant. Your pop-soi chaos theory reference is obviously wrong, though, because I successfully predict a trillion things every day and muh heckin' butterfly effect doesn't actually happen in most systems.

>>14686402
Not an argument.

>>14686405
I accept your full concession. My argument stands unchallenged. Come back when you finish highschool.

>>14686411
Also not an argument.

>>14675751
Just having a rand() function in your library doesn't prove anything, it might be pure shit only suitable for writing games.

>>14686336
> quantum stuff aren't predictable
> therefore its random

But dice rolling, which also isn't predictable, isn't random?

Also, I think there are theories of quantum mechanics which fit the data perfectly, but do not rely on randomness being a fundamental property of the universe.

>>14686398
it's very difficult to predict where individual raindrops will fall, but you know they will fall down.
and they will runoff into lakes and streams and into the ocean, eventually evaporating and becoming rain.

Q: how do you prove that a thread is TRULY retarded?
A: see the above.

>>14686395
>>14686398

If you flipped a coin 10,000 times. The results will be very close to 50% of them being heads.

The probability that 60% will be heads are super super low. Like extremely low. You can predict with high certainty that it will be very close to 50%.

So "because the fundamentals are random, everything is random" does not seem accurate. Aggregating many small random things makes the outcome less random, not more random.

>>14686468
no its far from random
as op mentioned in their post
>a coin flip could be considered "random" to humans, but given enough information, one could reliably calculate the outcome.
this could be taken in account for die as well. in fact there are methods u can learn to roll so u are more likely to roll certain numbers while making it look nonchalant.
>>14686381
we'll randomness unironically creates order. if we start with something random for example the big bang there will be a butterfly affect which is order. At the non quantum level there is order. with the chaos theory there is order to come but we just don't see it. I believe if u had infinite percision you would be able to calculate any out come. it doesn't exist at all levels bc the random becomes order.
>>14686339
well super positions have already been proven at the quantum level so knowing that if its impossible to prove that something is truly random at the non quantum level there is most likely no such thing, Occam's Razor. That along with the butterfly effect and the fact that we could calculate everything if we had the technology. so yes.
>true randomness only exist at the quantum level at least until someone proves otherwise

When there is a limited style of things, for example, 1-9

As the anon made the point of 10,000 coin flips;


If you write random string of 999999999999999999^9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999


Digits only using 1-9

There will likely be patterns

>>14685076
We only ever see flat earth, but we overcame our naive realism. Accurate quantitative theory trumps your naive realism.

>>14685094
>infinitly
That's a problem of infinitism, not a problem of determinism.

>>14686398
Weather isn't a cumulative effect of tiniest fluctuations, it's a result of sun heating the surface of earth, which is not a tiny fluctuation.

>>14675822
Why the fuck people cannot comprehend randomness? Like why are most people hard wired to assume that everything has to be deterministic?
It’s is well established that at at micro scale true randomness exists, you can replicate many of such experiments in a generic uni physics lab, even in some shithole country.

>>14688109
>It’s is well established that at at micro scale true randomness exists
What do you mean by "established"? How and by whom? It wasn't proved? Can you reproduce this establishment? And why this establishment should be trusted?
>you can replicate many of such experiments in a generic uni physics lab, even in some shithole country.
Those experiments are deterministic.

>>14685076
And do you observe superposition? No? Therefore it doesn't exist?

>>14688124
>what do you mean by established
The fact that it has been thoroughly studied and described by many independent scientist to the point that undergrad students (and even high schoolers if you have access to uni as a gifted student) replicate these experiments on regular basis now during their courses
>how and by whom
See above
>it wasn’t proved
Once again see above, it was tens thousand of times
>can you reproduce this establishment
see above, I personally did
>why should this establishment be trusted
because it can be demonstrated experimentally?

>these experiments are deterministic
No they aren’t.

If you are some kind of quantum skeptic buy some polarized filters to play around with, you can literally do some experiments at home to prove some quantum phenomena related to light, that cannot be explained by any classical means.

I swear to god are you guys some high school dropouts? Why do you even come to this board them. It almost feels like /pol/ sometimes but less entertaining in its stupidity.

>>14687183
Yeah so OP says "a coin flip is random to humans", but he says it like that means it is not random.

Imagine I said "The sky is blue to humans", as if to suggest it is not really blue. Or, "2 + 2 = 4 to humans" as if to suggest 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

The fact that a coin flip is random _to humans_ is reason to consider it random.

If I had super powers and could process all the information of a coin flip, I could still find myself in a state of not knowing how a coin flip would go if someone just said "Hey, guess how this coin will land" before they flipped it. Similarly, with my ordinary processing powers, someone might flip a coin, and I see it land heads, and they could ask me to guess how it lands, and then it is also not random. The whole "with enough information" has little consequence on whether or not there are random events.

Randomness is fundamentally the subjective inability to know how things will end up. It is not a property of the objects that we describe as being random or not.

Consider randomness in cryptography. It is fundamentally about making some values used to encyrpt data _unpredictable_ to other people. It is not a property of the numbers, it is a property of the people who might want to know what is being encrypted.

>>14688167
>it has been
What "it"?
>See above
Not all people who studied QM believe it's random.
>Once again see above, it was tens thousand of times
Where? You only said it was studied, study of nature is not a proof of randomness. Geocentrism was studied and described too.
>prove some quantum phenomena related to light, that cannot be explained by any classical means.
That's not a proof of randomness. Quantum phenomena are deterministic nonclassical phenomena that cannot be explained by any classical means, but they are deterministic.

>>14688167
>>14688109
I don't think there is an experiment of quantum physics that requires us to believe anything in the universe is fundamentally random.

I think we found some weird results in quantum physics, and rather than saying "I dont know why we got those results", some physicists speculated that somehow quantum mechanics itself is just random and not deterministic.

But that was never a necessary or justified reason to believe anything is "truly" random. At the very least because we have alternative theories of quantum mechanics, like the pilot wave theory, that are deterministic.

Observing quantum mechanics, and concluding quantum things are fundamentally random, was no more justified than seeing a coin flip, and concluding that was fundamentally random in an era predating newtonian physics.

>>14688210
You are either a troll or an uneducated idiot.
Did they kick you out of uni or you didn’t even get admitted and now claim that all science is false? Go to /x/ or some other schizoboard,

>>14688219
Deterministic theories of quantum mechanics are 100% legit science. Wtf are you talking about.

You are really showing your ignorance here.

>>14688219
Not all science is false. Randomness is false, because it wasn't proved. Perfectly scientific.

>>14688219
Like geocentrism, if it's science doesn't mean it's true. It's true only if it has proofs.

>>14688222
>>14688245
Hidden variable theories were considered a long time ago but have been disproven to the point of being certain that no such theory can describe the reality.

Your are clinging onto some half century old stuff that is no longer considered because it was a dead end.

>>14688258
> but have been disproven to the point

I don't think they have. Why do you think they have?

>>14675724
you could easily create a robot that could flip a coin and land it on heads every time. Hell you could 3D print a coin that landed on the same side every time.

>>14688204
>"Hey, guess how this coin will land" before they flipped it.
you're brushing up against questions of free will, and agency. for the sake of argument, assuming humans have agency, then they could alter how they choose to toss the coin.
but, maybe "agency" is not some real aspect of humans, and maybe it's an illusion out of the underlying mechanics.
maybe, if someone said "guess how this coin will land", and you have some perfect map of their mind, that you would know how their muscles intend to operate, and how the coin will actually be thrown.
if you are arguing from the angle of omniscience, would it be any stretch to know the muscles and bones and neurons are intending to be used, and what that would result in?
but you can skip the whole argument of agency by just "calling it in the air". still "random" and "indeterminate" to any human observer, but, controlled entirely by physical interactions which COULD be known.

>>14675892
>Because every action you take is determined by a set of variables in your cells and environment,
>determinismfag
bahahahaha
ok kiddo

>>14688767
>>determinismfag
Cringe. They're called determinitards.

>>14686799
>>14687183
>>14688101
Why are clouds not perfectly smooth? If quantum fluctuations lead to macroscopic non-randomness, clouds should become perfectly smooth over time, resulting in the only possible weather changes being between night and day, at the boundary between the evenly heated lit side of the planet and the evenly cooled dark side of the planet.

>>14688274
>you could easily create a robot that could flip a coin and land it on heads every time. Hell you could 3D print a coin that landed on the same side every time.
In a vacuum, but then have the robot flip it 1001 half flips on a day with a gentle kaze.

>>14675724
Randomness is a lie, there is a reason behind anything and scientists cannot produce anything truly random without appealing to ignorance.

>>14688269
cuz I saw a YouTube video that said so

>>14675724
If there were randomness, randomness would be more powerful than god and so there is no randomness

There are 10^9999+
Quarks, electrons, photons, gravity wells

Through their """""""""random""""""" placement, there is the universal order

>>14690409
So, a handful of items, multiplied abundantly, and placed in random order, unavoidably created overarching system and patterns, order

Now... Those few things connect in exponential ways..


There are only 100 or so elements, but 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...

Kinds of molecules that can be made of them

>>14675776
>the consensus of physics
Stop reading. Name every single individual, NOW.

>>14675724
Anyone have that image about how the brain decides your next action before you are evenj aware of it, meaning free will as randomness doesn't exists?

>>14676014
You only have answers not questions. You can only accept something if something in you coincide/agrees with what is been saying, meaning nothing has changed in you and it's the same thing but in "another" made up form/name/way. Or you can reject it, bc it doesn't match with you, again nothing has changed.
Stop larping as intellectual stupid low iq retard mongrel

>>14676029
Exactly, randomness and orderness are one and the same. You can't have one without the others, just a dog biting his own tail.

>>14676053
Fact is, it doesn't matter. We can do shit

>>14676248
>no one can predict when an atom will decay
The atom itself will know

>>14677415
Both are retarded bc none can objectively prove it
>>14676274

>>14688258
False dichotomy, hidden variables are not the only form of determinism.

>>14688269
Bell inequation. At least hidden variables Einstein wanted were disproved.

All this thread of cope instead of just saying:
>We don't know for sure and will never do, and even that we don't know, for sure, sure?

>>14691151
Sometimes when I'm solving a problem I realize I already know what result I'm heading to, but have to complete solving process to check it's correct.

>>14688258
The problem with Bell's theorem is that it's based on the assumption that the observer has free will and can choose an arbitrary way to measure some quantum information. If the universe is fully deterministic, then Don and Joe already unknowingly agreed on how they would make their measurements.

>>14691187
Unitary motion can be observed in the double slit experiment with a detector. When the particle goes through the other slit, it's not detected, but the interference pattern still disappears. This happens due to the particle being detected in another branch, and that observer branches off with the observed particle, leaving you with the particle in another pure state, which doesn't form an interference pattern.

>>14691270
But superdeterminism is fine tuning.

>>14691244
Thank you for that post. It lead me to reading about Bell's theorem which clarified a lot for me.

So, as I understand it now, the field of physics basically has to pick between a theory of quantum mechanics that is non-deterministic, or one that is non-local, meaning two particles might interact with each other instantaneously across arbitrary distances.

Both locality and determinism are both pretty strong and intuitive assumptions, so it is hard to throw out either of them.

Is that right? Given all that, I can see how the trade off itself is an argument against deterministic theories, albeit it is also an argument against theories with locality.

>>14691252
I'm sorry for your stupidity

>>14691473
No, Bell's theorem disproves only classical hidden variables, quantum mechanics still can be local and deterministic. Terminology in its descriptions is sometimes sloppy.

>>14676023
it's easy to have a lack of periodicity in a regular sequence. if you were to have all natural numbers appended together, that wouldn't be periodic.

non-periodic psuedorandom numbers would be tricky, but possible. You'd just have to have a function that matches any number to exactly one seemingly random number in N, then the 'appending' thing gives you non-periodic psuedorandom numbers.

'real' random numbers seems like too much of a confusion to me. If things are modeled by physical equations, what is 'really' random?

>>14691182
why not ask the atom?

>>14675724
Ok /sci/ - if online casinos truly are random, how do i profit from it? I can set up an experimental crypto casino wallet dedicated for playing with /sci/ created RNGB (Random Number Generator Breaker) techniques

>>14691048
>>14690409
??????? Answer

>>14693463
Spectrum:

Random------------------Order

According to possible usefulness for humans, consistency, pattern.

>>14675731
X = some quantum measurement. That's about as random as it gets in the physical universe

>>14675822
Check out the epr paradox and bell's inequality

>>14675752
https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA

4

Random number is just the idea of symbols. Think about Chinese symbol language, if I had a bag of Chinese symbol character words and dumped them on a table and read them, it would probably make less sense than if organized intentionally.

This idea of making sense, and organize, and intention, is very relavent to the topic

A number is never random.

A number is always exactly the number it is.

There are all numbers.

None of them are random

>>14675724
Nothing is random. And never will be. My favorite way to explain is. Randomness is lack of information.

>>14675731
An equation needs an input and if the input isn’t random then the output won’t be either

>>14692077
Asking the atom will cause it to doubt and second-guess itself and change the outcome

something will be truly random if, being a deterministic process, the actual information necessary to calculate its output is impossible to acquire. Therefore pseudo-random equations are NOT pseudo- anything if no conscious observer is capable of determining which equation is being used and what input it is. Just have the computer use a pseudo-random equation to determine secretly which pseudo-random equation will be used, and make the information unavailable.

>>14696862
Maybe ????

>>14696862
What would be the purpose or motivation of choosing one over the other? There are so many to choose from, what ultimately makes you pick a certain one instead of another

>>14677458
A phenomenon being guided by a deterministic mechanism is indistingusihable from a phenomenon that is randomly generated, since it is always possible that the phenomenon randomly generated the outcome that the deterministic mechanism also would have produced.

>>14697986
The determination of the laws of physics
If I am asked to pick any number, odds are it will be close to the smaller numbers than the larger

ONLY COMPLEX MINDS CAN POSSIBLY BE UNDETERMINED.

THEY ARE NOT RANDOM, BUT THEY ARE SELF DETRMINED, A MIRROR LOOKING AT A MIRROR LOOKING OUT A WINDOW

>>14698484
Interesting

>>14675752
Honestly... true.
In the grand scheme of things, you could technically find a pattern in the thermal and atmospheric noise commonly used to calculate random numbers, thus making it not really random.
This is a cool topic, thank you OP.

>>14682365
>Random means they cant be the same!!!
Just as likely as any other combination