/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14380685

332KiB, 600x583, 1649081093002.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

proposition: Computer generated random variables are truly random

Anonymous Sat 09 Apr 23:11:17 2022 No.14380685 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14380694 >>14380699

premise 1:
Machines that count the number of electrons in a random space of air (imagine a type of Geiger counter) can give us truly random variables. Why? Because we don't fully 100% understand electrons/radiation and their movement
Premise 2: give a computer random number generator to someone who doesn't know how it looks. To them, it is the equivalent of the electron random number generator.
Conclusion: computer random number generators are either truly random, or randomness does not exist at all.

Nobel prize please?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Apr 2022 23:13:24 No.14380694 Report

Quoted By:

>>14380685
>to someone who doesn't know how it looks
meant to say doesn't know how it works*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Apr 2022 23:15:33 No.14380699 Report

Quoted By: >>14380748 >>14381511

>>14380685
>moron fails to understand causality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Apr 2022 23:32:55 No.14380748 Report

Quoted By: >>14381487

>>14380699
whats not to get?
Premise 1 states that there exists a truly random number generator because we don't understand it
Premise 2 states that a pseudo random generator is truly random to people who don't understand it.
this leads to the idea that there are no truly random variables if we manage to understand everything. However, at that point randomness will either not exist at all, our all our pseudo-randomness is essentially truly random anyway.
Meaning we can just skip the step of understanding the entire universe and state that our pseudo-random variables are in fact truly random variables, and that we should treat them as such. This is widely accepted in academic environments today, mostly in application revolving random number theory such as Monte carlo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Apr 2022 05:42:17 No.14381487 Report

Quoted By: >>14382396

>>14380748
But there is true randomness at the quantum level. The universe diverges into multiple paths during quantum interactions, and different things happen in different branches. Observers diverge into multiple different paths too, and since you'll see different things in different branches, there's no way to accurately predict what you'll see beforehand. It's "truly random" in a way a PRNG isn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Apr 2022 06:03:52 No.14381511 Report

Quoted By:

>>14380699
Causality means that every effect has a cause. It doesn't mean that every cause will have the same effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Apr 2022 11:40:06 No.14381928 Report

Quoted By: >>14382396

what is the best true-random source I can buy as a USB device for my laptop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Apr 2022 15:21:50 No.14382396 Report

Quoted By: >>14382866

>>14381487
its only random because we dont understand it. If we fully understand quantum interactions and universe diverges and different branches and etc etc etc, there is no reason why we can't accurately predict what you'll see beforehand.
You only say there "is no way" because that's our understanding as of now.

>>14381928
>as a USB device
for the best "true"-random I don't think they come that small, they are more like a keyboard size box. not sure though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Apr 2022 17:58:41 No.14382866 Report

Quoted By:

>>14382396
>You only say there "is no way" because that's our understanding as of now.

You misunderstood what I was saying. It's not a matter of not understanding quantum interactions well enough, we already know all we need to know about quantum mechanics to draw the conclusion that accurate prediction is impossible.

When a quantum event happens that could have the outcome X or Y, both X and Y will happen in different branches of the multiverse. In one branch you will see X happen and in another branch you will see Y happen. So before the branching, it's strictly impossible to accurately predict whether you will see X or Y will happen. If you predict X, you'll be right in one branch and wrong in the other, and vice versa if you predict Y. So by definition you can't accurately predict what will happen: any prediction will be right in some branches and wrong in other branches, so one of the branches of "you" will inevitably find that their prediction was incorrect. No amount of understanding of quantum mechanics will let us make this prediction more accurately. Accurate prediction of these kind of events is impossible by definition.

To be clear, the evolution of the branching multiverse is entirely deterministic, and in that sense you could say there is no "true randomness". I'm not saying that god plays dice. But from the perspective of an observer living inside the multiverse, there are events that are fundamentally unpredictable because you, as an observer, also branch, and will experience different things in different branches. And, as you say, if we find that there is no "true randomness" under some particular definition, we might as well change our definition to include whatever actually exists that is closest to truly random. But the quantum phenomena of branching deserves that status, not PRNGs that are just difficult to predict because of computational limitations. PRNGs really are just "pseudo"-randomness, compared to quantum randomness.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches