Is it possible?

[Giest4life]

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.

Here's the difference:

Let's say the circuit ridden heart of our overlord is feeling generous.

Skynet: I'll grant you one least query before I kill you.

Human Rep: Give us a random sequence of 25 numbers.

Skynet:.....Computing....Computer....Computing....*EXPLOSION*

However...

Substitute Skynet for a human tyrant, and here's how that conversation is going to go.

Caesar: Any last wishes?
Rebel Rep: Gives us a random sequence of 25 numbers.
Caesar:.....
Rebel Rep:
Caesar: You get fuck all. Guards, take them away to the acid pits.

See?

 

[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

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.

That was just an example. It wasn't my main point. But yeah that makes sense

 

[Tanakh]

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.

Mhee, but you easily can get white noise, that is "random" depending in what you mean by it. Just calculate Pi in your basis of choice and tada, perfectly usable white noise.

 

[Tanakh]

Here's the difference:

Let's say the circuit ridden heart of our overlord is feeling generous.

.....
Rebel Rep:
Caesar: You get fuck all. Guards, take them away to the acid pits.

See?

All i see is that the engineer that programmed that AI should be fired!

On topic: <youtube=5I5dfI4SyLg>

 

[Giest4life]

All i see is that the engineer that programmed that AI should be fired!

On topic: <youtube=5I5dfI4SyLg>

Damn. Video blocked in my territory (US). I could use a proxy, but feeling too lazy right now.

 

[Kargathia]

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.

If you're putting it that way, then yes, a computer indeed can't generate any random numbers. But this is a bit like debating that humans can't possibly be objective. It's good to know, but most of the time it just doesn't matter.

 

[cookyy2k]

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.

Mhee, but you easily can get white noise, that is "random" depending in what you mean by it. Just calculate Pi in your basis of choice and tada, perfectly usable white noise.

If you take a spectrograph of white noise it's not all that random either, true it is very close to and doesn't have a repeating pattern but you see certain frequencies being far more common than others.

Although who's to say if that is or isn't random, randomness is hard to define as one number being repeated or seemingly favoured as not random as this is just as possible as a spread of numbers/events. Just like those who think the previous lottery results will have some bearing on future results, it doesn't. The balls don't remember who's turn it is. Though I would think there would be some biases in the masses/sizes/shapes of the balls varying minutely and them being loaded into the machine at different points.

 

[Tanakh]

If you take a spectrograph of white noise it's not all that random either, true it is very close to and doesn't have a repeating pattern but you see certain frequencies being far more common than others.

Although who's to say if that is or isn't random, randomness is hard to define as one number being repeated or seemingly favoured as not random as this is just as possible as a spread of numbers/events. Just like those who think the previous lottery results will have some bearing on future results, it doesn't. The balls don't remember who's turn it is. Though I would think there would be some biases in the masses/sizes/shapes of the balls varying minutely and them being loaded into the machine at different points.

Mhee, if you think randomness is a string of info that can't be obtained by a deterministic method, then we are kinda screwed aren't we? Randomness would be more difficult that an immaculate conception.

That is also my basis of thinking that really, we and the universe aren't that different that a game of life on the old computer. Just a lil more complex.

 

[cookyy2k]

If you take a spectrograph of white noise it's not all that random either, true it is very close to and doesn't have a repeating pattern but you see certain frequencies being far more common than others.

Although who's to say if that is or isn't random, randomness is hard to define as one number being repeated or seemingly favoured as not random as this is just as possible as a spread of numbers/events. Just like those who think the previous lottery results will have some bearing on future results, it doesn't. The balls don't remember who's turn it is. Though I would think there would be some biases in the masses/sizes/shapes of the balls varying minutely and them being loaded into the machine at different points.

Mhee, if you think randomness is a string of info that can't be obtained by a deterministic method, then we are kinda screwed aren't we? Randomness would be more difficult that an immaculate conception.

That is also my basis of thinking that really, we and the universe aren't that different that a game of life on the old computer. Just a lil more complex.

Well this is my point of no true randomness, there is no such thing as an isolated system and this leads to predictable biasing influences.

It all depends on what you want from your "random" numbers. In all the work I've done psudo-random code has always sufficed and I'm a physics researcher.

 

[Tselis]

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.

Random, yet so fucking awesome! Also, I'm not good with numbers either.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

1/0. So random it does not compute.

 

[zehydra]

"generate pure, random integers"

Incorrect. We can't.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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

Why yes, there seems to be no outside influence in that sentence, it is completely rando...

Wait a minute, let's look at your first two and last two words:

Eating a... ...mahogany dicks.

Tell me about your mother...

 

[balanovich]

You know how we use computers to generate pure, random integers,

Computer based random generator aren't truly random.

and we can't do it our selves either.

 

[fulano]

The OP's premise is half flawed. We have no way of generating random numbers using computers...at all. Read about pseudo random number generators to get an idea of what I mean.

As for ourselves, who knows, it would depend on how you determine randomnes. The question is more comlpex than it truly seems; sometimes even veering into the realms of philosophy in the argument for and against free will, or mathematics in how much can you compress a bit of information.

In short: it ain't no cakewalk, I'm afraid.

 

[Unesh52]

Wait a minute, let's look at your first two and last two words:

Eating a... ...mahogany dicks.

Tell me about your mother...

I fucking rolled.

snip

The fact that you're a physics researcher and you have Twilight as your avatar tickles me immensely. I'm studying to become an astrophysicist, and Twi is my favorite pony. (BTW, are you in the MLP group here?)

But what about quantum randomizers? If their input is uncaused sub-atomic shenanigans (I did say astrophysics right? Quantum mechanics is not exactly my forte...), then anything based on that could not be predictable in any meaningful sense of the word. In other words, it would be random. Right?

 

[Tanakh]

Well this is my point of no true randomness, there is no such thing as an isolated system and this leads to predictable biasing influences.

It all depends on what you want from your "random" numbers. In all the work I've done psudo-random code has always sufficed and I'm a physics researcher.

Yeah... but it's kind of silly to have a word for something that doesn't exists by faith alone, because AFAIK there is no proof that you can't have randomness, this universe would be far less bleak if burst of randomness could spout here and there. Kinda also why i like to do crazy stuff.

And yeah, pseudo random lists kick ass, you can do beautiful fractals with that. Math here, have done some math popularization stuff and pseudo-random does the job fine, just remember to reseed here and there!

 

[Vrach]

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.

If you're putting it that way, then yes, a computer indeed can't generate any random numbers. But this is a bit like debating that humans can't possibly be objective. It's good to know, but most of the time it just doesn't matter.

Oh I agree completely, but considering the whole purpose of this thread was true randomness, I'd say this is one of those few cases where it matters.

 

[Indeterminacy]

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?

Yeah, and the technique is relatively easy. The idea is that Randomness emerges by introducing nonsense into an encoding scheme; treating an instance of communication as though it were made with intentional numerical content when no such content was intended.

With respect to the determinists' response to this question, true Metaphysical randomness is always going to be difficult to come by, since everything has content at the metaphysical level. But that doesn't mean we can't come up with things that stretch the limitations of our regular cognition; Turing's incomputability results show that there are always going to be problems that lie outside the realm of the ability to determine their outcomes.

Let me put it like this. Randomness is trying to upload a toaster.

 

[DasDestroyer]

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.

Sorry, but you have far too many 4's and 8's and no 2's, 7's or 9's for it to be random. Your mashing was clearly inclined towards the point between 7,8,5 and 4, while still fully avoiding 7.