The human mind and random numbers

[nsaspook]

My point is that this is not truly random. There are factors that determine the state of the bits upon startup. If there were no factors to make them change, they wouldn't. Don't you see? Everything happens for a reason--not only philosophically, but also physically. My whole point is that if something didn't have a reason to change, it wouldn't. Therefore, it depends on different factors, and that means it is not random. Your example is only quasi-random, meaning it is "random" enough to work in some mathematical cases, but is not perfect. There is no such thing as random in the real world. Period.

Quantum randomness is not quasi-randomness. There is nothing philosophically or physically that changes it's randomness. These chip process variations are quantum mechanical (thermal noise of plasma chambers and ion beams during doping and deposition) at the atomic level and are impossible to reproduce to the exact extent twice with exactly the same conditions. With at sram device the amount of random bits that you can get from one chip is limited but the bits you do get can be truly random from the bits that are balanced 1 or 0 with thermal noise deciding which one it will be come on power-up. Because of the bit limitations of at sram generator the device normally used as a authenticator not a generator.

QUANTIS device:
**broken link removed**


HW random generators in general:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardw...ical_phenomena_with_quantum-random_properties

Philosophically if you have certainty you must have randomness.

 

[DerStrom8]

Not even wrong.

First, that's like saying you can predict a coin flip because over time it will average out to half-heads, half-tails. If you believe that, you need to go look up the "Gambler's fallacy".

Second, with the coin you could theoretically look at the physics involved - force, acceleration, wind resistance, etc. Can't do that with nuclear decay.

I believe you can. The rate of decay does depend on factors, even if we can't measure them accurately right now. But it certainly is not random.

 

[Sceadwian]

What does Gamblers fallacy have anything to do with it? That's a problem of a simple mind trying to think they can understand a complex system. The fallacy comes from the real system being more complex than we're able to calculate. So far as to the best science and mathematics has been able to determine so far, information can not be destroyed, which means any state can always be determined, which means it's impossible for something to be 'unknown' The big caveat being that the bulk majority of this type of information is encoded outside the practical grasp of our ability to acquire enough data to determine it's previous state... We'll know right what occurs at the moment of the big bang as soon as we react the practical understanding of infinity.

I didn't even bring up a coin toss... Those aren't random, the weighting of the coin gives a slightly higher chance of heads, even if everything else is equal.

It all depends on the scale you look at it.

 

[DerStrom8]

These chip process variations are quantum mechanical (thermal noise of plasma chambers and ion beams during doping and deposition) at the atomic level and are impossible to reproduce to the exact extent twice with exactly the same conditions

Here you admit that it all depends on factors during doping and deposition. Something determines the amount of thermal noise. Also, not being able to reproduce to the exact extent twice is, in itself, a sort of pattern. Truly random numbers would, theoretically, repeat several times. You would not get something like, if choosing 10 numbers out of 10 numbers, '5,2,7,3,9,8,1,6,4,0'. You would probably get something more like '5,2,2,4,7,5,3,6,5,9'. Numbers WILL repeat. Not happening twice does NOT mean random. Not by a long shot.

I feel I am overstating my case, so I will back off a bit. However, I still stress my point that ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL THING is every truly random. Any changes depend on other factors, no matter how discrete or minute they may be. Again, everything in the universe happens for a reason.

Der Strom

 

[nsaspook]

Here you admit that it all depends on factors during doping and deposition. Something determines the amount of thermal noise. Also, not being able to reproduce to the exact extent twice is, in itself, a sort of pattern. Truly random numbers would, theoretically, repeat several times. You would not get something like, if choosing 10 numbers out of 10 numbers, '5,2,7,3,9,8,1,6,4,0'. You would probably get something more like '5,2,2,4,7,5,3,6,5,9'. Numbers WILL repeat. Not happening twice does NOT mean random. Not by a long shot.

I feel I am overstating my case, so I will back off a bit. However, I still stress my point that ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL THING is every truly random. Any changes depend on other factors, no matter how discrete or minute they may be. Again, everything in the universe happens for a reason.

Der Strom

I understand you feel this way but it's not a fact.

The basic nature of the universe is random , you can't roll back the universe to a point even if you had perfect knowledge of every atom. The complexity of life, nature and the structure of energy create the patterns we see, but the origins of these patterns are truly random at the quantum scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

These theories argue against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, famously insisted that, "I am convinced God does not play dice",[1] but whether he objected to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics is disputed.[2] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance.[3][4] Later, Bell's theorem would suggest (in the opinion of most physicists and contrary to Einstein's assertion) that local hidden variables are impossible.

 

[Sceadwian]

The basic nature of the universe is random , you can't roll back the universe to a point even if you had perfect knowledge of every atom. The complexity of life, nature and the structure of energy create the patterns we see, but the origins of these patterns are truly random at the quantum scale.

You could, if you had a perception of the universe that exceeded the known state of the existing universe... Current cosmological theories are leaning towards multiple dimensions and multi universe theories that cause even the vast unknown to be deterministic within the realm of it's ability to be measured, which is outside our realm of measurement..

If anything could be unknown then everything would be pure chaos, which is actually what's occurring, however we're a perceptual awareness in one specific avenue of existence on one small fragment of interaction.

If you want to disprove this, then cease to exist.

 

[DerStrom8]

You could, if you had a perception of the universe that exceeded the known state of the existing universe... Current cosmological theories are leaning towards multiple dimensions and multi universe theories that cause even the vast unknown to be deterministic within the realm of it's ability to be measured, which is outside our realm of measurement..

If anything could be unknown then everything would be pure chaos, which is actually what's occurring, however we're a perceptual awareness in one specific avenue of existence on one small fragment of interaction.

If you want to disprove this, then cease to exist.

I agree wholeheartedly. The basic nature of the universe is NOT random. Everything is based on mathematical facts. Mathematics is the universal language that holds true for everything. It is the key; the algorithm, so to speak, for solving the Rubik's cube that we call the universe.

 

[Mr RB]

I am not a believer but I would like to give it a try. I have the same doubts as you expressed above. For that reason I am still interested in finding out what they used for a RNG.

Exactly! And to see if each RNG device has the same relationship between positive charge and generating a 1 bit. If that is the case, then they are simple highly sensitive charge detectors that are detecting atmospheric or local field polarity. And there are proper sensors for that, which should be used alongside the RNG to see if there is correlation.

Otherwise, if the relationship in every RNG is different (like if they are different circuit designs) and some make a 1 bit from a poitive event and some make a 1 bit from a negative event, then we would expect the RNGs to not be affected by world "charge polarity". But of course in that case there would be zero correlation between 1 and 0 in any of the machines so any averaged +/- trends in results would be meaningless. It's a catch22, either way the global averaged RNG tests are defective.

...
... However, I still stress my point that ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL THING is every truly random. Any changes depend on other factors, no matter how discrete or minute they may be. Again, everything in the universe happens for a reason.

Hi DerStrom, you made some interesting and valid points. Regarding natural sources of "randomness" then time becomes important. In the case of radioactive decay RNG the atoms of an isotope "pop" and release a spike of energy. Since there is no way of determining the exact life of any atom the pops occur at random timing, so if measured against a high speed clock like a divided computer xtal there will be an equal chance of any pop happening when the xtal is 1 or the xtal is 0.

I get you point that everything happens because of real factors, but I think the term "random" is best understood as "that which cannot be predicted". So even though real factors cause the radioactive decay the timing of each pop can never be predicted and qualifies as random.

Likewise a good math-only PRNG generating a total output data chunk that is much smaller than its total number of states can also qualify as "random", although people will argue due to the algorithmic nature of generating the data.

 

[DerStrom8]

I get you point that everything happens because of real factors, but I think the term "random" is best understood as "that which cannot be predicted". So even though real factors cause the radioactive decay the timing of each pop can never be predicted and qualifies as random.

Thank you for your input. I realize that it would be extremely difficult to predict it, but since it is based on real factors, I still believe that (theoretically) it could be predicted. It would take an immense amount of knowledge and skills to be able to, and there may not be a man alive who could do it. But theoretically, it could still happen.

I understand all your points, and to some extent I understand your reasoning. However, I think it should be taken even deeper.

Okay, I said I'd back off, and I still haven't. Sorry about that I wonder if we're getting too far off of 3v0's original topic? If so, I could start a new thread regarding what is truly random. Any takers?

Der Strom

 

[nsaspook]

I agree wholeheartedly. The basic nature of the universe is NOT random. Everything is based on mathematical facts. Mathematics is the universal language that holds true for everything. It is the key; the algorithm, so to speak, for solving the Rubik's cube that we call the universe.

Where is the proof of this? There is none, it's faith not fact. Every experiment in to the fundamental nature of matter has confirmed that it's not true even in classic physics of chaos, fractals and nonlinear dynamics. The end game for science is the algorithmic universe but the deeper we probe matter and energy the less ordered it becomes and we begin to see how this randomness is intrinsic to life.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2011/11/ARandomUniverse.pdf

The energizer driving random design is well-known to most scientists as the uniform
tendency of all physical and chemical reactions to move toward disorder. While once
again seemingly counterintuitive, this tendency toward disorder is actually crucial to the
creation of order, imparting to our world an essential directionality. Indeed, without this
directionality, nothing in the world would happen. No chemical reactions, no physics, no
connections, no movement, no life - nothing. Thus, in a surprising and provocative twist
of irony, nature's rush to disorder and randomness is actually the key ingredient enabling
life.

**broken link removed**

 

[nsaspook]

Likewise a good math-only PRNG generating a total output data chunk that is much smaller than its total number of states can also qualify as "random", although people will argue due to the algorithmic nature of generating the data.

Even very good PRNGs still have some non-random signatures that can be detected. http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1521

Our (more modest) aim is to present tests capable of distinguishing computable from
incomputable sources of “randomness” by examining (long, but) finite prefixes of infinite
sequences. Such differences are guaranteed to exist by [4], but, because computability is an
asymptotic property, there was no guarantee that finite tests can “pick” differences in the
prefixes we have analyzed.

We close with a cautious remark about the impossibility to formally or experimentally
“prove absolute randomness.” Any claim of randomness can only be secured relative to, and
with respect to, a more or less large class of laws or behaviors, as it is impossible to inspect
the hypothesis against an infinity of — and even less so all — conceivable laws. To rephrase
a statement about computability [42, p. 11], “how can we ever exclude the possibility of our
presented, some day (perhaps by some extraterrestrial visitors), with a (perhaps extremely
complex) device that “computes” and “predicts” a certain type of hitherto “random” physical
behavior?”

 

[nsaspook]

QuantumLab: about randomness, **broken link removed**
BELL'S THEOREM: http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

No physical theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

[Sceadwian]

Hence the class of tenable hidden variable theories are limited to the non-local variety. However, none of the tests of the theorem performed to date has fulfilled all of the requisite conditions implicit in the theorem. Accordingly, none of the results are totally conclusive.

It's still just a theory if it's not proven. Soon as a proof has been made you might have ground to stand on and hail it as fact, but right now your assertions are safely 'unknown' Much the same as the philosophical assertions that attempt to logically prove the deterministic nature of fundamental reality.

Science and mathematics just aren't there yet, and very likely never will be.

 

[nsaspook]

It's still just a theory if it's not proven. Soon as a proof has been made you might have ground to stand on and hail it as fact, but right now your assertions are safely 'unknown' Much the same as the philosophical assertions that attempt to logically prove the deterministic nature of fundamental reality.

Science and mathematics just aren't there yet, and very likely never will be.

It's hard to prove a negative but every test so far has been a positive for the theory. So if I balance dogma or mysticism against all experimental data at energies up to the LHC scale, data wins. It's "unknown' the same way the chances of surviving a fall off a 100 floor building is unknown.
https://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/23/14632

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Among the most important proofs of impossibility of the 20th century were those related to undecidability, which showed that there are problems that cannot be solved in general by any algorithm at all. The most famous is the halting problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:[1]

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

Although he acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was.[2]

 

[Sceadwian]

It's hard to prove a negative but every test so far has been a positive for the theory.

I inferred no negative, I simply stated the fact of the matter that the science and mathematics are still out, any other viewpoint is assumption or opinion, which includes BOTH sides.

Although he acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects.

'Effectively free for the purpose at hand' is code for 'we noticed the same thing and we can't explain it either'

 

[nsaspook]

I inferred no negative, I simply stated the fact of the matter that the science and mathematics are still out, any other viewpoint is assumption or opinion, which includes BOTH sides.



'Effectively free for the purpose at hand' is code for 'we noticed the same thing and we can't explain it either'

Valid points if you argue that the universe is absolutely predetermined by a natural or supernatural order(the linguistic predicate for his 'at hand quote'), but do you agree that quantum mechanics in general and applications that exploit it's properties work as theorized today and explain physics in a way that is currently impossible with known classical deterministic algorithmic methods.

My personal belief is that we are 6 sigma on the science and mathematics of this issue. (Bad SPC joke)
http://www.barringer1.com/jan98prb.htm

 

[Sceadwian]

I'm not trying to argue that it is, I said it is my belief on what little I've been able to garner from math and physics and the current scientific understanding of the human race, which is by the way, a pittance to complexity of reality and we find this out more every day.

There is as I stated above, no way to argue the point to a conclusion from either side so discussing it is pointless.

My personal belief is that we are 6 sigma on the science and mathematics of this issue.

We don't even know the nature of 95% of all of the matter that makes up our observable universe, the number of dimensions in it, or even knowing if there are other universes or their possible interactions with our own, yet you're six sigma sure of the mathmatics and science?

Lets just reflect on that for a moment...

I'm sure that the jury is still out. The next few hundred years (if society manages to remain stable) are going to be incredibly fertile territory for all sciences, and by the end of the day this time 10 years from now, there's a good chance the things you're sure of right now are going to be laying in a ditch somewhere nothing more than the dirt the new knowledge was built from.

 

[andrewblog]

I'm not very expert in electronics, I have just some basic skill. So I'm not sure about what I'm writing.
I don't know how a random number generator works, but I heared that electronic devices can be affected by magnetic field variations. The human mind works by electric signals, than it generates magnetic waves.
The same thing probably happens when animals feel the magnetic field variations before a big event, such as an earthquake or a tornado.

 

[Sceadwian]

Andrew, the field variation that anmials (and some people) are senstaive to are VERY low frequency. The frequency that electronic devices put out and are susceptible to are incredibly high, and in reality the actual influence of even VERY strong electric and magnetic fields on electronics is EXTREMELY weak.

 

[nsaspook]

We don't even know the nature of 95% of all of the matter that makes up our observable universe, the number of dimensions in it, or even knowing if there are other universes or their possible interactions with our own, yet you're six sigma sure of the mathmatics and science?

I agree that there is *no* such thing as a scientific
theory guaranteed to be absolutely true, with no possibility of error.
but until someone has one counterexample of bells theorem, yes.
**broken link removed**

The Buddhism practiced by the Dalai Lama embraces an unbroken chain of cause and effect. How did he respond when you explained the random nature of quantum events?

This was something he didn’t like. He said, “You have to look closely, you have to find the cause.” And then he said something interesting: “If this is really true and you can convince us, then we have to change our teaching.” That is a flexibility which not every religion has.

Will we have better ones in the future? Yes but it doesn’t make this one any less valid than classic circuit theory explanations of voltage and current were when Maxwell's EM theories explained the same thing at a higher level of understanding.