State of the Game
- Thread starter Fuglydog53
- Start date
Randomness in a deterministic world.Yes, I am aware of problems with creating randomness on current computing tech, so to call it.
I was thinking about something else actually.
How can be universe deterministic, if we seem to have discovered WORKING mechanism of creating REALLY random numbers.
NIST’s New Quantum Method Generates Really Random Numbers
Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed a method for generating numbers guaranteed to be random by quantum mewww.nist.gov
Hmmm.
I write my last post today
and then go to bed.
That's why real entropy in the computer world is generated (next to other methods) like this:
Courtesy CloudFlare
the problem is not with the universe but with your interpretation of what deterministic means - a common mistake even some academics make. Deterministic does not mean anything is preset and will unfold in a certain way, but just that the underlying math is deterministic - the example with chaos shows that pretty well. Most people assume that chaos is a quite random thing, but it is actually not - it is just unpredictable, but based on deterministic math and once you have computed it it will always come out with the same results - just before you have computed it there is no way to tell what the next result will be.Yes, I am aware of problems with creating randomness on current computing tech, so to call it.
I was thinking about something else actually.
How can be universe deterministic, if we seem to have discovered WORKING mechanism of creating REALLY random numbers.
NIST’s New Quantum Method Generates Really Random Numbers
Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed a method for generating numbers guaranteed to be random by quantum me
And what is real randomness - tell me this - those numbers generated by multiply with carry are as well "really" random in the sense of being cryptographic safe. Whereas for example Mersenne twister generates numbers which look random, but they aren't cryptographic safe - actually we (my partner and I) used Mersenne twister for artificial life experiments until we discovered, that our "evolvables" behaved in a strange way - like synchronized - well, they evolved and adapted to the non-random sequence Mersenne twister is creating, they basically found out, that it isn't cryptographic safe. So we changed to multiply with carry, where this problem doesn't appear.
Now tell me how you would like to prove real randomness, when there is not even a definition of what that actually means?
Yes, I am aware of problems with creating randomness on current computing tech, so to call it.
I was thinking about something else actually.
How can be universe deterministic, if we seem to have discovered WORKING mechanism of creating REALLY random numbers.
NIST’s New Quantum Method Generates Really Random Numbers
Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed a method for generating numbers guaranteed to be random by quantum me
being deterministic doesn't require everything in the system to be, just the reaction when looked at a given distance away ... ie. quantum reactions can only be described as a probability but aggregated and looked at on a more macro scale, that probability shifts towards something very predictable. Go even further and aggregate that, and you have extreme confidence. As the scale and sample size increases, the system becomes more and more deterministic.
We can force it to behave randomly, but it doesn't want to be truly random. It wants to go from high energy to lower energy levels always. So that tendency (and the seemingly singular direction time allows) creates a deterministic avg among the random fluctuations that gives us non-random behavior overall. And thus physics and matter and life (since a random universe would be unstable unless you believe in an infinite multi-verse and we just happen to be 1 random collection of random chances that only appears deterministic at such a tiny scale of the whole). T
I disapprove of all this science and fact. It doesn't involve cat pictures, nor the level of mild cheeky sarcasm we are used to.
see, i knew you would say that. The Void exists beyond the all universes... because all exist within it. So it sees all things in it's deterministic nature across all time. It whispers these things to those who have learned how to listen to it.
it also whispers that we will run out of pages before all the crap hits the fan tomorrow evening.
And that the mods will end this thread with a giphy of the "Where do we go from here" dance from Buffy
And that the mods will end this thread with a giphy of the "Where do we go from here" dance from Buffy
HURR DUUUR NEW EPIC POST
it helps when you understand that the nature of our universe is probabilistic and in many ways strange - an electron orbiting the kernel of an atom, where is it?- it has no definitive location, but a probability cloud where it could be. Or why can't we measure location and momentum at the same time (heisenberg)?- why is the result of the double slit experiment dependent on if we observe the electron passing through those slits or not? Physics are strange and we just scratched the surface of it - we will never actually know everything, Gödel's incompleteness stands against it. So keep wondering at our marvelous universe and it's awkward weirdness. Just think of superposition, entanglement and all the strange things coming with the quantum world - it's just fantastic and an endless source for researchers working on expanding our knowledge.
Another thing to think about - a particle cannot move less than planck-length or in less than planck-time. So if it is now in A and later in B = A+planckLength - where is it "in between" those locations - where is it during this at least planck-time long time span? Does this "in between" even exist?- Does that particle exist during that time span? And if, where is it?
Another thing to think about - a particle cannot move less than planck-length or in less than planck-time. So if it is now in A and later in B = A+planckLength - where is it "in between" those locations - where is it during this at least planck-time long time span? Does this "in between" even exist?- Does that particle exist during that time span? And if, where is it?
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
it's not that it wouldn't exist between, it's that there is mathematically no between and no means of measuring the "in between"
there is a difference between the mathematical description and the physical existence. philisophically anyway. just not to anything described by the mathematics of it.
plus, nothing is actually a particle or a wave but something that exists as a combination that we do not have a macro-reference to visualize. waves do things that are intrinsic to waves and light being a bit of both means that we think it's not intuitive for it to behave the way it does in the double slit while we pretend it's a particle but that's just because we are pretending it's something it's not.
Last edited:
there is certainly a dispute about if mathematics are discovered or invented - my personal opinion is that the nature of "reality" is purely math, it has no reality to it other than math. I know that is a position which not many share at all - one famous advocate of it is Max Tegmark - he suggested that reality has just mathematical properties, I go a step further suggesting that there is no reality in the sense we use it - it is virtual, exists just as mathematical entities and relations between those, and if you ask where - well, nowhere - it's a phenomena in math.
Except we'd never actually ask anyone to hold the mayo on anything. But the phrase is spot on!
i do all the time. a condiment made from egg and vinegar. It's disgusting.
almost as bad as its cousin, Ranch.
so much nasty.
Always live in the moment. Don't allow reality to catch up and ruin everything.
This is the way.