If math and programming is deterministic then how can you ever program a truly random number generator

If math and programming is deterministic then how can you ever program a truly random number generator

You can't.

noise sampling

Sample from a truly random piece of hardware e.g. decaying isotope

What's the formula for a super basic RNG generator again? I remember learning it in high school

some shit about dividing something and then taking the remainder of that

fuck its been years

Mouse movements

the simplest is middle square method

there's is no truly random shit, not even in nature

Krypton decaying?
Was random enough for Schrödinger at least

time % max is easier if you have access to fine grained time

"Random" is a word you plebs came up with to undermine the true meaning of reality. Pathetic sub-humans. I control every single one of you degenerates. Welcome to planet Earth.

sampling thermal noise

True randomness does not exist. Randomness is a made-up concept to describe processes that you can't or don't want to simulate accurately because of limited data or processing power.

There is nothing random in this world.
Most random thing is universe background radiation, and it is random to us, because we don't have enough knowledge to predict it.
Other "random" thing is /dev/random

>True randomness does not exist.
t.moron

It is you who is the moron.
>hurr I don't have all the data, it must be random xDDD
>hurr I don't know shit about physics, God must be pulling everything towards the ground xDDD
>hurr I don't know shit about evolution, God must have created everything

And what do you think is random? Even polling "random" numbers from quantum systems is just obtaining the result of decoherence; and while decoherence isn't currently possible to model deterministically it's more than likely just very difficult to model

>t. Fedora tipping enlightened atheist

But in reality, there's no way to prove either the creationist belief, nor the evolution way of explaining how we've come to be here where we are now

this. the universe is deterministic and randomness or free will can't possibly exist

the sooner you accept this, the sooner you can move on

Both depend on axioms one has to accept as true, yes. The difference is that the theory of evolution, unlike creationist belief, can be used to predict developments that haven't yet occured. It can be used to further humanity and discover more about the universe, which is the entire point of science. By handwaving everything as "the invisible sky wizard did it", you might be providing an explanation for the thing at hand, but that explanation doesn't help you make accurate predictions.

>I control all of you
>you're all pathetic and retarded
You certainly are a bright one.

>religion can't predict things that haven't occurred yet
then how do I know you'll keep shitposting from the bowels of hell for all eternity?

Well, generally anyone who predicts something that's gonna happen all the time is going to blindly get one of the things that happen right, where I'm going with this is that anyone can predict and there's a chance that at one point everything what that person has predicted will happen, eventually making him, so explaining anything with science is just like making your own God, like we've made laws of physics, who may or may not apply, because they are a way of explaining why things happen.
Generally not a very religious person, but I do believe in God, but God is much more than a way of explaining things.

By applying your knowledge of previously observed occurences where shitposters didn't stop shitposting.
If you had to rely on faith, you couldn't possibly make an accurate, reasonable prediction. My shitposting could be God punishing you for jerking off to anime. My shitposting could be a test of faith from God and you fail it if you keep replying. Or maybe you fail if you DON'T reply and try to make me see the error of my ways. Maybe God himself will strike me down for my shitposting. There is no telling what will happen because throughout history, deities have displayed a high degree of inconsistency in their actions; and if they didn't (mostly as a result of some cultures having lots and lots of deities to cover every possible scenario), there's no telling WHICH ONE will intervene, or not.

>how do I know
Everyone browses Sup Forums

But the thing is, God doesn't punish anyone, he has given the complete power of will to people, like Adam and Eve.
So people control everything they do themselves, without any assistance of God

>he doesn't know heisenberg's principle

Use a womans emotional changes

>he doens't understand women

if man has free will there must also be true random numbers

Science and theism aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Also, if you blindly guess then generally speaking, your chances of getting a certain prediction right are a lot lower than when making educated guesses. That's what science boils down to, increasing the odds of being right by using the largest amount of reliable data. Blind faith is the denial of observation and the disregard of the data and thus won't help you in the long run.

>God doesn't punish anyone
Yeah, Cain had a whale of a time after killing his brother.
>people control everything they do themselves
People are bound to the same laws of physics as anything else. Whether you attribute those laws and everything's adherence to them to God (which is counterproductive) or not is beside the point. Yes, technically I made the choice to drink some water a couple minutes ago. I did so for a number of reasons that are, partially, beyond my control.

>he's feminine and gay enough to do

Quick, tell me 20 random numbers between 1 and 10 inclusive without using external number generators like post numbers etc.

random enough is the only thing you can get, realistically

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

/thread

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I was about 80% sure you were going to repeat the same number 20 times, and 90% sure it was either going to be 1 or 10.
I estimated the probability of you picking either pi or e as one of them as around 60%.

>My shitposting could be God punishing you for jerking off to anime
fuck

it all makes sense now

You indeed, are right about the science, somewhat increasing the chance, but as I've mentioned, there's a chance that anything will happen at one point in time and so predicting using somewhat of a credible source seems just pointless, the thing I don't really understand is, why do people thrive to explain everything that happens, but base it on past experience that is also based on some past experience that's based on what exactly, what is the most credible choice in humanities existence? I mean, u can take old books, but people back then "knew" much less than we do now, as our scientific knowledge has improved. So Idk about scientific credibility, but I'm gonna believe what I believe, but also taking science into consideration, it's really exciting for me to see we're discovering new things, honestly

Nice. I predicted you would make this exact comment.

>kill brother
>wtf my life sucks now?!?!
Just as there are physical laws built into the universe, so there are moral laws. Commandments from God aren't demands so much as they are warnings: "don't jump off a cliff" and "don't commit fratricide" aren't laws against doing those things, but just explaining that there will be consequences. In that sense religion is both predictive and immediately practical.

Probably a lcg

>there's a chance that anything will happen at one point in time
Nope, the chance of my grandparents having 4 kids together is zero even if the time interval you're looking at is infinitely long, since my granddad is dead.
>so predicting using somewhat of a credible source seems just pointless
So you're saying you should just cross busy streets whenever you feel like it, rather than using the data at your disposal to determine the best time to do it (for example, when the traffic is stopped).
>why do people thrive to explain everything that happens
In order to make more accurate predictions of future events.
>but base it on past experience
Because there's no such thing as future experience.
>So Idk about scientific credibility
Simple, you don't base all your predictions on outdated information, but rather update the information and add to the data that is at your disposal.

OK, different example.
>Egyptians won't let muh people go
>suddenly locusts

Not him but, maybe they invent a time machine and then your grandad travels with it, in order to impregnate your grandmother, in the future from the past.
Or maybe they find a way of getting your grandad back to life.
Just think creatively and something will come up as a way of explaining something that might happen

background radiation sampling.

By taking truly random input, like sensing radioactive decay.

baited for this exact response

Fucking liar

Even if math is deterministic (it isn't), natural phenomena are still random. Even if you say that it just has a enormous number of parameters we can't control, Bell's theorem assures us that quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic.

>maybe they invent a time machine
If we're assuming magic is real, then yes, anything is possible. Excuse me for using the previously discussed method of increasing the accuracy of my predictions to rule out certain events.
>Or maybe they find a way of getting your grandad back to life.
I doubt they'll be able to turn a pile of ash back into a living human being that is "the same" as the living human being it once was and also capable of reproduction.
>Just think creatively
The problem with your predictions is precisely what I was trying to illustrate: if you assume ANYTHING is possible, and magic is real and the sky might be green if you wish hard enough, then your chances of being right are infinitesimally small due to the now infinitely large amount of possible events. The point of science is to make _accurate_ predictions, not just ANY predictions. You know, instead of saying "you know we might have wings one day and fly around the Rings of Saturn in spaceships powered by rainbow farts", we're looking to make boring, useful predictions like "the likelihood of me punching you in the face within 5 minutes of meeting you in real life is around 80%".

Why would someone lie on an anonymous rock identification board?
I mean, there's no way for me to prove it but I genuinely did make those estimates before user posted his reply.

>truly random number
there isn't any such thing in the whole universe as randomness.

Can you please explain how Bell's theorem does that? As far as I understand, it's got something to do with two events that occur simultaneously but at distinct spatial locations not being able to influence each other since any influence one could have on the other can only traverse the distance between those events at the speed of light.
Which, of course, does not mean those two events can't be correlated since they may have been influenced by a different event in the past.

Are you familiar with Bell's theorem? One of the way to explain it is that no local variable can affect the results you get in experiments. One of the ways to understand it is that quantum phenomena are truly random, or that everything is already determined, that would mean that there is no need for something to influence the particle's result, since it already knows what it is supposed to do, just like all of the universe knows. The second alternative seems unbelievable for me, so I choose not to believe that everything, including this post, was already determined by the universe a long time ago.
You can also understand randomness with the uncertainty principle, where the momentum can't be known the more we know about the position. This can be seen by shooting a photon at an electron, which would scatter the photon in a random direction, due to the principle.

>there is no need for something to influence the particle's result, since it already knows what it is supposed to do
That's complete bullshit. Interaction between particles being deterministic does not imply that any one particle has the information necessary for an interaction to take place before the fact. It is the SYSTEM that contains this information, yes, in the form of the particles and their properties themselves.
>This can be seen by shooting a photon at an electron, which would scatter the photon in a random direction, due to the principle.
That's just because our technology is not capable of consistently aiming accurately enough, nor capable of recording the data accurately enough. Furthermore, there might simply be variables at work that have not yet been discovered.

>truly random number generator
No need to implement a non existing thing.

>math is deterministic
What do you mean by this?
Math is used to describe nondeterministic systems. It is called Statistics.

Different user, but Bell's theorem shows that if you want a deterministic system that explains all of quantum mechanics, you cannot do so with local variables (i.e. variables intrinsic to the particle).
The variables must be nonlocal, which means they can send information faster than light. This essentially means that a deterministic formulation would lead to time paradoxes (e.g. grandfather paradox) since it is incompatible with relativity. One way of addressing this issue is superdeterminism, which is precisely what the other user said, which is that every physical object knows exactly what every other physical object is going to do for all time, and therefore the information is already readily available for all time (travels infinitely fast). It still doesn't necessarily stop time paradoxes, but it seems like it might.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle isn't an issue of our technology, but it is a fundamental property of the universe.

Bonafide retard.

Of course you can prove evolution, illiterate.
Creationists can't prove a thing, so they just ignore the proof's onus and say evolutionists doesn't have proof as well (tip: it's a lie).

>grandfather paradox
No such thing.

That's cool

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

>induction
not real math desu

quantum noise

You use random noise from irl random events, like magnetic shifts at the poles of the earth, or other sensory input from the environment that occurs in a fashion you cannot predict. A computer alone can't churn out random numbers.

>is mastermind
>shitposts on Sup Forums for any amount of time
pick one

u r cute :3

>If math and programming is deterministic
But this is wrong, math isn't deterministic. Look up probabilistic algorithms, e.g. Miller-Rabin w/ no verified bases is probabilistic, with probability to return a pseudoprime at most 4^-k, where k is the number of checks.

>Math is used to describe nondeterministic systems.

People sometimes try to model/approximate such systems with maths.
But I don't think a nondeterministic system has ever been fully described with maths.

>maths
oi m8 innit

No. The universe does not care about your Newtonian classicism.

But you can predict the noise theoretically

There is one resource you need to make good enough random numbers. Pic related.

If the entire universe is deterministic then yes

proof?

> Universe is deterministic
Quantum world

can I get those on PCPartPicker?