Is it possible?

[Giest4life]

You know how we use computers to generate pure, random integers, well, can humans do that? I mean, is it even possible for human beings to come up with a sequence of integers--or anything else, for that matter--that is purely random?

Personally, I think that we can. Although since it's random, it is not possible for us to intentionally come up with anything random, and even coming up with a random number (anything), randomly, has the remotest of possibilities.

I was trying to come up with a random sequence of 10 numbers, but I couldn't, because I was defining integers as between 0 and infinite, and got too taxing on me to pick 10.

EDIT: By "random," I don't mean an assault on your keypad, I mean random numbers popping in one's mind.

 

[MrNickster]

Eating a watermelon with thaiwanese powered chopsticks flavoured like a scented candle of mahogany dicks.

That's relativley random. I'm not good with numbers.

 

[emeraldrafael]

1534813541681316846844844843545483345

That there above is what I got from turning on Num lock and just hitting what i wnated while watching american dad. and thats about as random as itll get.

 

[Vrach]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

 

[gabe12301]

*closes eyes* 2345234523452347536724358346976578455835745687

...Yes.

 

[Mikkaddo]

You know how we use computers to generate pure, random integers, well, can humans do that? I mean, is it even possible for human beings to come up with a sequence of integers--or anything else, for that matter--that is purely random?

Personally, I think that we can. Although since it's random, it is not possible for us to intentionally come up with anything random, and even coming up with a random number (anything), randomly, has the remotest of possibilities.

I was trying to come up with a random sequence of 10 numbers, but I couldn't, because I was defining integers as between 0 and infinite, and got too taxing on me to pick 10.

actually, as I understand it, it's systematically IMPOSSIBLE for humans to make random numbers. Even more so for machines to do it, they use algorithms that are based on a certain set of numbers, and purposefully chooses within that range, making it random but only to a degree. A truly random number would not be bound by digit numbers, prime or not, even or odd so on. A human however takes a less logical view of how to make a random number. Usually if you ask a person to come up with a random number, in their head they do this:

number of people I dated, number of cars I've owned, how many friends I had in highschool, year I lost my virginity, number of cds in my car etc.

That's not random, it may be a number from a random subject, but it's not a random NUMBER.

 

[Mikkaddo]

1534813541681316846844844843545483345

That there above is what I got from turning on Num lock and just hitting what i wnated while watching american dad. and thats about as random as itll get.

not so my friend! truly random would be ONLY if you were watching family guy, backwards, while drinking wine . . . on a saturday afternoon

 

[Giest4life]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

I think there are websites that generate "pure" numbers. Like this one [http://www.random.org/].

 

[subjectseven]

I tried it, but it didn't work out to be as purely random as what you've described. I think we're too influenced by other things going on in our mind to be as completely random as a computer. It might be possible? But I can see it requiring some extremely intense focusing.

 

[Kargathia]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

Or they're reading static from their motherboard. It of course involves a few formulas, but it does qualify as "random".

On the whole it's an interesting question. My hunch is that if you'd test this you'd get a result weighted towards the lower numbers (1-100), as they more readily pop into people's mind due to being encountered most.

 

[cookyy2k]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

I think there are websites that generate "pure" numbers. Like this one [http://www.random.org/].

The randomness comes from atmospheric noise

This still is not completely random as the way in which it is generated is not completely random as this is part of a larger system.

OT; no I don't think true randomness exists in any form really. Everything is part of some larger system be it your conciousness when in your mind, the CPU clock in your computer or atmospheric noise.

 

[New Frontiersman]

Actually no, humans cannot generate purely random numbers, no matter what we do there will always be a pattern to it.

*closes eyes* 2345234523452347536724358346976578455835745687

...Yes.

I notice that your "randomly" generated numbers do not contain a 1 although they statistically should, their not actually that random if you look at them, there is a visible pattern.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Humans can't come up with truly random anything. Very few things in the universe are defined as random. For example, the behavior of quantum particles is by their nature random. Aside from that, computers don't generate random numbers, the best they can do is take a random set and generate a number form it. For example, in an above post someone posted Random.org. The randomness their comes not from a computer from from the atmospheric noise. (I'm not actually sure atmospheric noise is random just highly complex).

 

[Giest4life]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

I think there are websites that generate "pure" numbers. Like this one [http://www.random.org/].

The randomness comes from atmospheric noise

This still is not completely random as the way in which it is generated is not completely random as this is part of a larger system.

OT; no I don't think true randomness exists in any form really. Everything is part of some larger system be it your conciousness when in your mind, the CPU clock in your computer or atmospheric noise.

Ah, I see. Maybe we can use this to overload our future robotic overlords?

 

[gabe12301]

Actually no, humans cannot generate purely random numbers, no matter what we do there will always be a pattern to it.

*closes eyes* 2345234523452347536724358346976578455835745687

...Yes.

I notice that your "randomly" generated numbers do not contain a 1 although they statistically should, their not actually that random if you look at them, there is a visible pattern.

That's the beauty of randomness it's random. You can't prove that they are not random because they may or may not be random.

....cake.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

EVen computers can't do that. They're too methodical and deliberate - what they do, however, is stop the clock for a split second, and use the smallest measurement of time at that exact moment. For example, they might stop the clock at 2:14:35:49. Then 9 would be the 'random' number generated. It's the closest computers can get to generating a purely random number

I don't think humans can because we, too, are far too methodical. We'll have a predisposition to a particular number, we'll stop to think for a split second then it's no longer random.

I believe random numbers can only be generated using things like a dice throw, or a coin toss or something similar - pure, natural, unbiased luck

 

[the spud]

Computers can't do it either. Have you ever heard of a random number generator? Basically, there is a list of numbers in the code of the game and the list moves on when you do a specific action (say, take a specific step). That is how a computers come up with random numbers.

Spoiler: WOOOOOOOOOOO!!! 1000 posts!!!

 

[Tanakh]

Ah, I see. Maybe we can use this to overload our future robotic overlords?

Hehe, but if the world is deterministic and our brains are only Turing machines, what would be the difference between the a computer overlord and a human?

BTW, I do believe that the world is deterministic and that we are over hyped and over complicated abacus.

 

[cookyy2k]

EVen computers can't do that. They're too methodical and deliberate - what they do, however, is stop the clock for a split second, and use the smallest measurement of time at that exact moment. For example, they might stop the clock at 2:14:35:49. Then 9 would be the 'random' number generated. It's the closest computers can get to generating a purely random number

I don't think humans can because we, too, are far too methodical. We'll have a predisposition to a particular number, we'll stop to think for a split second then it's no longer random.

I believe random numbers can only be generated using things like a dice throw, or a coin toss or something similar - pure, natural, unbiased luck

There has been a study done on coin tosses though to show a bias. Depending on the design and wear of a coin as well as the style in which it is flipped, it will come up with one more than the other and which comes up more can be predicted and fairly accurately as to how much more frequently so this is not true randomness either.

 

[Vrach]

Erm. Computers don't generate random integers. They use a formula that gives pseudo-random numbers.

Or they're reading static from their motherboard. It of course involves a few formulas, but it does qualify as "random".

If you can accurately predict the next number in the sequence, it's not random.

I think there are websites that generate "pure" numbers. Like this one [http://www.random.org/].

It uses formulas as well, it merely utilizes non-static numbers from the somewhere as variables. Given a reading of those variables (which is obviously possible, considering they're used in the first place by the site you're quoting) and a formula, it's again accurately predictable.

Don't get me wrong. You can get something that seems very random and for all pragmatical intents and purposes, it 99.99ALotOfNines% is. But there's no such thing as a computer generating random values.