This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Anything Random?

Reply 20

qgujxj39

17

nowheree

and how do you go about programming that?

Duh.

Reply 21

Craig_D

17

Wakeke

Radioactive decay is considered completely random and based on no factors/variables I believe.

Was about to say :awesome:

Reply 22

Fuzzpig

16

I swear whenever I flip a coin it lands in heads.

I'm lead to believe tails is heavier than heads.

:teeth:

Reply 23

Jabbamuffin

1

nowheree

and how do you go about programming that?

Reply 24

Psyk

16

Jabbamuffin

The answer is you can't. All random number generators in computer programs are seeded by some external value. Games often use the user input to generate random numbers since it's very unlikely a human will press the exact same buttons at the exact same times more than once. Or sometimes they seed on the current time and date.

Reply 25

MarcusTheEskimo

OP

Psyk

The answer is you can't. All random number generators in computer programs are seeded by some external value. Games often use the user input to generate random numbers since it's very unlikely a human will press the exact same buttons at the exact same times more than once. Or sometimes they seed on the current time and date.

Yes, I agree. I think one of the closest things a computer program has gotten to randomness is using mouse movements over a long period of time to generate the random number. Which just goes to further the point that nothing is truly random, as, if you could emulate the exact same conditions to get the same return, it wouldn't be random.

Reply 26

Psyk

16

MarcusTheEskimo

Yes, I agree. I think one of the closest things a computer program has gotten to randomness is using mouse movements over a long period of time to generate the random number. Which just goes to further the point that nothing is truly random, as, if you could emulate the exact same conditions to get the same return, it wouldn't be random.

Well you could do better than that. Hook up a geiger counter to the computer and use that to seed your RNGs. Can't get much more random than that.

no

tommm

I don't think so, for the same reasons as you gave. I believe that the universe is made up of two things: a set of laws by which everything abides, and a set of initial conditions from which everything evolved. If we ever knew these laws and these conditions (which would, of course, never happen) and had a machine capable of processing them (which would also never happen), then we could determine the state of the universe at any point in the future.

In fact, this is not strictly true. There is a theoretical machine known as a Turing Machine, which as it happens is essentially equivalent to modern computers, I believe, which has a problem associated with it known as the halting problem. That is, if you give it something to solve, there is no way of knowing whether it will solve it until it solves it. If it never solves it, you won't know whether it is going to at some point in the future. There is another construct involving balls in a box, rolling around in 2 dimensions. The problem is put into the box in the form of position and size of balls, and momentum. The result is the end position of the balls. Since this is equivalent to a Turing Machine, there is no way to know how it will end up (because of the halting problem), and it provides a reasonable model of particles. Thus, in a system of particles, it is impossible to know what they will be like at a later time. As far as I know. It's worth bearing in mind that that's something I read in a book over a year ago, so I may have got the specifics wrong... But the idea is right - it is impossible, even with all the processing in the universe, to know what it will be like exactly at a later time.

Reply 29

SahilB91

much of quantum mechanics has an air of randomness due to the way (i.e. the maths) we use to describe it and the limits imposed upon us. that's not say stuff like radioactive decay is random, that's just the best way we have of interpreting it. i don't THINK randomness exists at a fundamental level...

Reply 30

py0alb

3

Mithra

Quantum actions are completely random as far as we can tell.

Yeah, as far as we can tell so far with our extremely limited model that works with a flat background metric, something that has been out of date for 80 years and counting.

The majority of physicists I work with go along with the conclusion that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics is most likely a flaw in the theory, rather than a definitive outcome.

Those who attempt to get philosophy from quantum mechanics are reading way too much into what is an effective but unorthodox mathematical model - the same thing happened with Newton's laws in the reformation.

Personally, I doubt any phenomena is truly random, even nuclear decay. Maybe that is just my naive deterministic worldview, but the evidence in favour of universal causality certainly seems overwhelming.

Reply 31

SahilB91

Bobifier

In fact, this is not strictly true. There is a theoretical machine known as a Turing Machine, which as it happens is essentially equivalent to modern computers, I believe, which has a problem associated with it known as the halting problem. That is, if you give it something to solve, there is no way of knowing whether it will solve it until it solves it. If it never solves it, you won't know whether it is going to at some point in the future. There is another construct involving balls in a box, rolling around in 2 dimensions. The problem is put into the box in the form of position and size of balls, and momentum. The result is the end position of the balls. Since this is equivalent to a Turing Machine, there is no way to know how it will end up (because of the halting problem), and it provides a reasonable model of particles. Thus, in a system of particles, it is impossible to know what they will be like at a later time. As far as I know. It's worth bearing in mind that that's something I read in a book over a year ago, so I may have got the specifics wrong... But the idea is right - it is impossible, even with all the processing in the universe, to know what it will be like exactly at a later time.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but he did say he had machine capable of doing it...

Reply 32

Mithra

2

py0alb

Yeah, as far as we can tell so far with our extremely limited model that works with a flat background metric, something that has been out of date for 80 years and counting.

The majority of physicists I work with go along with the conclusion that the probabilistic nature of quantum physics is most likely a flaw in the theory, rather than a definitive outcome.

Those who attempt to get philosophy from quantum mechanics are reading way too much into what is an effective but unorthodox mathematical model - the same thing happened with Newton's laws in the reformation.

Personally, I doubt any phenomena is truly random, even nuclear decay. Maybe that is just my naive deterministic worldview, but the evidence in favour of universal causality certainly seems overwhelming.

Well I'm only first year so I can't really argue with what I assume are proper physicists :p:

. All I know is that I used to assume that it must be simply a lacking in the theory but feynman seemed very definite that it wasn't so I thought until I knew more myself thats probably the better way to see it :dontknow:

.

Reply 33

py0alb

3

Mithra

Well I'm only first year so I can't really argue with what I assume are proper physicists :p:

. All I know is that I used to assume that it must be simply a lacking in the theory but feynman seemed very definite that it wasn't so I thought until I knew more myself thats probably the better way to see it :dontknow:

.

It is certainly a topic in which there is much heated debate in the tea rooms of physics departments around the country. Once you get used to how scientific theories progress and are eventually superceded by better theories, you tend to make up your own mind about which bits are most likely to be the dodgy bits in the ones we have now.

Before we knew about Brownian motion and statistical physics we thought the actions of macroscopic particles were random. Now we know that they only appear random because there are so many of them (the law of large numbers).

If there is an overriding theme over the last hundred years, it is that we constantly finding determinism at smaller and smaller scales. Don't be surprised if quantum physics is the next to go.

Reply 34

DeeDub

15

It impossible to program randomness so a random number generator based purely on circuitry is not truely random. Emission of radioactive particles is quite close to random, but is probably still not entirely random.

Reply 35

paddyman4

14

Everything is random. That is the whole essence of Quantum Mechanics, which is the most fundamental physics.

Reply 36

gravityisamyth

EskimoJo

I'm random! Lolllzzzz!!1!! :woo:

Hah, I was waiting for someone to do that :p:

Reply 37

Psyk

16

paddyman4

Everything is random. That is the whole essence of Quantum Mechanics, which is the most fundamental physics.

Even if that's true, it has a negligible effect on objects of the scale we are used to. If you hit a pool ball at at another pool ball at a certain angle with a certain power, on a certain surface, the same thing will always happen. The randomness on the quantum level is averaged and has a negligible effect when you look at things on a macroscopic level.

Reply 38

paddyman4

14

Psyk

Even if that's true, it has a negligible effect on objects of the scale we are used to. If you hit a pool ball at at another pool ball at a certain angle with a certain power, on a certain surface, the same thing will always happen. The randomness on the quantum level is averaged and has a negligible effect when you look at things on a macroscopic level.