Jump to content

# Why are computers not considered truly random?

## Recommended Posts

Either luck can not exist in the form of rolling a dice or computers are truly random. Here I will explain:

You throw a dice. It lands on a number. No! Thats not luck as someone could know the number before its even generated by looking at the physics of it. How hard was it thrown? Whats the gravity? Etc. etc. etc.

OR

You throw a dice. You do not care about what determines it to land on the number but accept it as random.

Now the same exact thing can be applied to a computer.

I process some code. I check how long it took to process the code. I use the 10th (Or some number to the right that can be 0-9 consistently random) digit to the right of the decimal. Now then, what determines how long it takes to process the code?  Same thing (Just in a different form) as rolling a dice. Now how is this any farther from rolling a dice? Why is this considered not to be random? Actually, I believe that would be /more/ random than a dice as with our current knowledge, it wouldn't surprise me if we could figure out what number it will land on if we have all the variables needed (the dice). How do you determine it with the computer example I've given?

Just one of those things I cant stand. Computers can randomize. (Unless there is something wrong in what I'm expressing.) As in reality, nothing is truly random, as everything must have to be predetermined by something to obtain that. You can not find anything completely random without any possiblity of being able to determine it prior.

##### Share on other sites

Heh.. Brings back memories. Yes, your theory about nothing being truly random is indeed true (There are a limited amount of physics in the conviened universe) so what we inevitably have to call it is pseudorandom number generation. There are many well built methods such as iterating over Mersenne primes with a founded seed, but that's all you'll really get in the computer world.

You can go farther and retrieve analogue voltage noise from an empty pin on a serial port, or what some have done generate numbers based off of atmospheric radiation. Random is a definition, how it is interpreted into logic can infinitely vary.

##### Share on other sites

I'll keep this short as i am about to go to bed,

easy solution change the meaning of random to "low predictability rating due to too many factors"

SOLVED!

as we're on the subject of predictability (well kinda) I remember a theory that suggested if you could calculate all the forces on every atom in the universe. you could in essence play all the actions forward at a slightly fast pace thus predict the future...

The problems I see with this are not only do you need everything at once but anything used to do the calculations would have changing atoms and will then need to be re-calculated which then means its atoms have change thus it needs to re-calculated etc etc etc etc

##### Share on other sites

Yes, your theory about nothing being truly random is indeed true [...]

Since when did that become universally accepted in the scientific world?

##### Share on other sites

Since when did that become universally accepted in the scientific world?

It didn't. Just another oni-kun-truth.

##### Share on other sites

This post is random!

##### Share on other sites

It didn't. Just another oni-kun-truth.

Aren't we cute, now?

##### Share on other sites

Aren't we cute, now?

The 'shy' smiley gives that effect.

##### Share on other sites

It didn't. Just another oni-kun-truth.

Aren't we cute, now?

I dunno about now, I've always been cute.

##### Share on other sites

I dunno about now, I've always been cute.

Really. Not from your Facebook profile picture!

[attachment deleted by admin]

##### Share on other sites

Yes, your theory about nothing being truly random is indeed true

You better let the people working in quantum physics know about this, they have it all wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Yes, your theory about nothing being truly random is indeed true

You better let the people working in quantum physics know about this, they have it all wrong.

It's all semantics, That first sentence was a Freudian slip.

##### Share on other sites

This thread is more than a year old. Are you sure you have something important to add to it?

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.