I Am The Greatest - I Am God

Is it possible for an electronic device to produce truly random numbers? No, it isn't.

Why? Because random does not exist. Everything is deterministic. Random is just a name we give to things that seem to happen arbitrarily, but that really isn't the case.

Unfortunately, We just don't have a good enough understanding of the universe to prove this. Something like that might be quite far off. Though, I believe in less than 500 years Homo sapiens will have been long obsolete.

Fucking middle school kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand

bump

>>4
"Bump‽‽‽

"BUMP‽‽‽‽‽‽‽

4chan has gone to hell.

>>5
Hell‽

Hell‽‽‽

Being a little melodramatic, aren't we?

Oh, wait, this is 4chan.

>>2

He's right, you know.

Anyway, everything is deterministic. Random is just an idea we made up.

>>8
Enjoy middle school while it lasts, and don't pick physics as your major in college. It will blow your tiny mind.

‽‽‽interogangbang‽‽‽‽

>>8
Random is a measurable function from a probability space equipped with a sigma algebra and a sigma-finite measure to the real line.

Come back when you've done some actual math.

>>9

>>11

No, >>1 and >>8 are right, actually.

>>12
Only if you think that there is absolutely no difference between something that it empirically unknown and something that is ontologically unknowable.

OP is right!

>>13
QFT.  I love you.

>>13
>>15

for shame.

This is just the same old Bayesian versus Frequentist slapfight, just now it's got a lot of people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Universe = deterministic

We just don't have the technology to observe this yet.

>>18
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even Wikipedia is less retarded than you are.

Humans have made up everything we "know" to be "true" so who is to say anything we "know" is "real" ?

>>19
Just because we can't track a particle with our technology, barely in its infancy, doesn't put it outside the range of possibility ;)

>>21

Guess again.

>>20
Enjoy stepping out of a twentieth-floor window. After all, gravity was just made up.

>>21
Protip: it's not just a technical limit.

>>19
Doesn't disprove determinism.

>>23
Yes, gravity was just made up. It was made up like everything was made up. We are but small insignificant life forms. No one would care if I did jump out the window.

>>25
and to add to that, no would care if probably anyone on 4 chan jumped out a window.

>>25
DO IT

>>27
Done, user is dead.

Fixed

No one on this board can disprove determinism. It's a sort of faith to be strongly in favour of one view on the subject.

>>29
Depends on the variety of determinism.  If you mean nomological determinism -- every event in time unfolds according to the circumstance at that time and the laws of nature -- then you're right.  Short of positing divine intervention, you can't disprove it.  If you mean strongly predictive determinism -- as in we could in principle predict all future states of the universe from the perfect current knowledge of the current state -- then you're wrong, period.  The premise is invalid.  Perfect knowledge doesn't exist:  see Heisenberg.  Some prediction problems require calculations as complex as the entire physical universe.  Fuck it, even given axioms, there are statements completely consistent with those axioms that nevertheless cannot be proved or predicted to exist from those axioms.  See Goedel.

There are properties of the universe that directly affect the future states of it that are not just unknown, but absolutely unknowable.  Absolute prediction is impossible.  Probability distributions on future states are the only 'true' description, regardless of the fact that only one will be realized.

Bayes is vindicated by physics.

God exists PROVE ME WRONG

>>30
I still believe nothing is truly "random". We're just too simple to see this. A few steps ahead of chimps. At the bottom of a ladder that leads to a place we could not hope to dream of.

Everything has to unfold a certain way. There is nothing random about it.

>>32
Determinism or Locality.  Pick one.

>>33
That's an easy choice. Nonlocality isn't just an acceptable tradeoff for determinism, it's a pretty cool property even by itself.

>>1
lern2quantum, nublet

lern2freeparameters

>>35
>>36
way2be ignorant

I agree with OP, although the last sentence is just faggotry (obsolete to what dickhead?)

>>38
A genetically re engineered version of us. There are several ways that I personally can think of that we could be surpassed by superior forms of life that we've created ourselves. I really don't believe Homo sapiens will last that long once we break into relatively hardcore exploration of genetic manipulation.

>>39
Do you really need another Holocaust to tell you why quests for Ubermenschen are a bad idea?