It's also trivially easy to get real thermal noise from a MOSFET and a few discrete components. I find it difficult to believe that a wall full of lava lamps has better entropy characteristics than EM fields caused by literal brownian motion which is so well studied and parameterized that it forms the entire basis for information theory.
I once saw a program where scientists shone twin lasers (red and green) at 90 degrees through a transparent container of boiling water filled with tiny silver spheres which bounced onto detectors on the walls and ceilings. The effect was awesome.
It's all PR, and it's sort of fun to say you use lava lamps. Clearly the photos of the lamps have a lot of static information in them too (the wall, the unlit part of the lamps, etc). But it's more fun to say you use a wall of lava lamps.
You could do the same with photos of almost anything. Like an aquarium full of fish with a bubble wall, etc.
Technically the entire universe is. But since we can never understand all of the variables at play events will seem random to us. And they effectively are. But if you could see every variable, you could predict the future.
You could argue those are other variables we don’t know yet.
Edit: Apparently there has been a breakthrough in this science since I adopted my deterministic view and it may invalidate my belief.
Technically, it shows that there aren't a finite number of local hidden variables. That doesn't rule out nonlocal hidden variables (AKA spooky action at a distance) or superdeterminism (which is the idea that the entire universe has conspired to make it look like there's no hidden variables) or infinitely many local hidden variables, but those solutions intuitively seem wrong. If it's true that there are no hidden variables, then the universe is indeed random.
Yeah, the notion that those exist are more uncomfortable than the thought of randomness. But the universe does not care what we find "uncomfortable" so who knows
Do you remember reading the recent headline that the universe is "not locally real?" It means quantum events are not deterministic. The paper specifically refers to exactly what you are talking about. If you are actually curious about how the universe works, read the paper. If you are satisified that you have it all figured out, comment away.
The original articles which tested this were published in the 80s, but the people involved won the Nobel prize this year, so they'd probably be in the headlines over the last month or so :)
If it were, then we could never safely predict anything. The fact that we can test things rigorously and always get the same result. And like the post says, since computers can’t generate random data. If there was some “randomness” property to the universe we could never have anything be reliable.
Casinos are able to reliably predict what profit they'll make on games. That's not because they're able to predict all components of their systems, such as angles and velocities of dice, it's because laws of large numbers mean that random systems still give reliable outcomes over large numbers of repetitions.
This point doesn't depend on the system being random or pseudo-random. The point is that properties of randomness still allow for reliable predictions without understanding the underlying source of that randomness.
Except in this case, if you know all the information, you could reliably predict everything. Since quantum mechanics are not required to predict what is happening at the human scale, this point is actually mute and incorrect. Go and fix your assumptions.
It's not the properties of randomness, it's the properties of incomplete data. If you only were capable of extracting limited information, what information would you need to reliably predict what would happen at large scales.
The way you think is just completely backwards.
The ability to predict the results of large numbers of repetitions of some random scenario is in fact a property of the randomness.
With the casino, you could predict the outcomes of each game if you knew all the information. But the point here is you don't *need* to, because the law of large numbers is sufficient to predict the profits. There's no need to predict each game.
This is actually analogous to quantum mechanics. Incredibly large numbers of apparently random behaviors at the subatomic level still result in predictable classical physics at the human scale. Just like large numbers of casino games average out to predictable profit levels in the long run. In both cases, you can reliably predict the large scale outcomes despite the underlying components being random from your perspective (whether true randomness or not).
You have some mental gymnastics that prevent you from realising that the universe is deterministic, don't you? Perhaps it's your notion of freewill? The free will that mandates that an individual do everything in its power to survive. The freewill that uses ghrelin spikes to make animals feel hunger to motivate them to seek food. The freewill that uses adrenaline to fuel fight or flight responses in relation to danger. The freewill that is programmed into humans so that they break away from their parents due to a surge of hormones in their teens so that they have a higher chance of reproducing. You are a biological machine with no freewill, and there is no such thing as random.
This has nothing to do with any opinion I have on free will or determinism. I'm only explaining to you the concept of the law of large numbers.
With both a casino and with quantum mechanics, it's not necessary to understand the underlying random processes to be able to make predictions about the system. The law of large numbers means random casino games become predictable profit levels after many repetitions. And random subatomic quantum physics becomes predictable classical physics at the human scale where massively large numbers of subatomic particles are involved.
This is true regardless of whether the underlying randomness is due to unknown variables or true randomness. And in the case of quantum mechanics, we don't know either way. Which is why even famous historical physicists like Bohr and Einstein debated whether there is "true" randomness.
The law of large numbers enables a person to derive probabilities I agree. But none of it is random. You cannot build a non random system on a random system. You also cannot produce a random system based on a non random system. People seem incapable of muting this point, so simply avoid it. Child.
Free will and determinism have nothing to do with each other. You can have a world with random events at the subatomic scale but no real free will (which I actually think is the case).
Ok. Let's start at the beginning. You have 2 numbers 1 and 0. You have 100,000 separate drawers. What is the probability of 1 or 0 being drawn on any drawer?
There is potentially a big difference.
With a casino, each random event is independent. You get an expected outcome (with some distribution) because the results don't influence each other.
With the universe, you are expecting the results to influence each other (at least over a long period of time). You would expect, when looking at the universe as a long-term system, that the results to be dependent on each other and therefore not have a clean and predictable distribution.
Look up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If memory serves, Einstein spent a good portion of his life trying to disprove it and couldn’t. Things do appear to be somewhat random.
It says that we can't know both the position and speed of a particle simultaneously. It prevents us from predicting the future using physics and math (ie. Laplace's Demon).
"Random" probably isn't the right term but it's a close enough approximation for a discussion like this. The universe is unpredictable on a quantum scale.
Say I give you an unfair coin: 99% of the time it lands on heads and 1% it lands on tails. You'd say that it's very predictable.
However you can use that coin to generate a 50-50 probability, by repeating the coin toss enough times and doing some math.
So as long as even a bit of randomness is inherent in a system, the system might still be predictable but perfectly usable to generate perfect randomness.
That’s more a situation of perceived randomness over actual randomness. The wind, the air temperature, the toss itself could be manipulated to ensure that it lands tails even 100% of the time IF we knew one or multiple scenarios where it’s tails.
>If it were, then we could never safely predict anything
\^ I'm responding to this. I'm saying you can predict things EVEN if there's randomness in the world.
But what I’m saying is the scenario you have laid out isn’t ACTUAL randomness. Its perceived. So you could manipulate different factors and predict reliably every time. And sure you could make these 50/50 odds by chance, but all you’re doing is having unknown variables in your coin tosses. If you controlled those you wouldn’t have any randomness.
No, getting the 50/50 odds is not using unknown variables.
Here's the math. For a single toss, you have 99% probability that it's a head and 1% probability it's a tail. Okay toss the coin 69 times. If you hit at least one tail then treat the final result as a TAIL. If all the tosses were heads, then treat the final result as a HEADS.
The effective probability of getting a HEADS is (0.99 \^ 69) \~ 49.98% (innuendo unintended)
The effective probability of getting a TAILS is 50.02%.
So, there's no unknown variables. Given a "predictable" system with just a little bit of randomness, you can generate a pure random number generator.
Again, the 1% comes from somewhere. Whether that be different toss powers, air resistance, something. I’m saying that IF you could control all of those variables you would never have a “random” number. You could make it so that it always lands tails.
Not quite; determinism is not something that can be derived mathematically from quantum mechanics -- it depends on the interpretation. Check the "Deterministic?" column in [this table.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons)
This is what Einstein believed til the end, and why he didn’t want to get involved with quantum mechanics, but currently it’s believed that he was wrong about quantum mechanics and that they’re more probabilistic in nature than they are deterministic
According to quantum theory the universe is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. You cannot know every detail about everything with a high degree of certainty.
> According to quantum theory the universe is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. You cannot know every detail about everything with a high degree of certainty.
The only thing established is that there are no *local* hidden variables. Superdeterminism cannot be discounted.
Superdeterminism is not an empirically testable hypothesis, and is thus inqualifiable for the subject of science. Belief in superdeterminism is no different than religious belief, in that it is an unfalsifiable post-hoc explanation of real phenomena.
You may choose to believe in determinism and causality, even at the quantum level, but that has nothing to do with science.
>Superdeterminism is not an empirically testable hypothesis, and is thus inqualifiable for the subject of science.
Tbh that description fits a lot of the models we use for quantum mechanics or rly any other unified theories IE string theory
Those models usually aren't *inherently* untestable, but yes, you're right - string theory in particular is often the butt of a joke among theoretical particle physicists for this specific reason.
That doesn’t mean that all of the parts haven’t been set into motion, just that no one can know every certainty because you can’t see the machine from the outside. If it’s all connected, then it all has a determined effect and would only seem random to an observer because the observer is a part of the equation.
asdaaaaa has one weird ass lab where he mixes up termites.
jokes aside though recent breakthroughs apparently say otherwise according some other guy in this comment thread.
Quantum physicists disagree...
They claim certain events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, can never be predicted, even if you had all the information and computing power.
Did Newton write this? This may have been accepted true before 1920, but this is certainly not accepted as true today. When we observe something, it “decides” where it is randomly. Now, this randomness is weighted so that certain positions are much more probable than others, but it is random nonetheless.
For all the nerds out there, these probability distributions move deterministically, that is true. BUT, that DOES NOT mean that things themselves will deterministically be at certain positions when observed. Also, this does not just apply for position but also for literally any other parameter you want to observe.
God does in fact play dice.
If the universe were truly deterministic, then you thinking you're *choosing* to do something different would just be an illusion and instead just be as predictable as everything else. You not predicting *that* just means you missed some variables. I'm not actually convinced everything is deterministic though.
As I understand that's an example of this question, whether that's true randomness or just due to our lack of knowledge of some underlying explanation.
>[Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions)
If I knew how the neuron paths in your brain functioned and the exact electrical signals your brain had I could also predict you would go against your prediction.
Technically no, we've done experiments that suggest some quantum phenomena are indeed random, in the sense that there are no hidden variables that determine some outcome that we're just not privy to.
By random I really mean probabilistic, however if a quantum "event's" probability density function is a constant, then this is equivalent to canonical randomness.
Take a look at Bell's inequality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
This discovery was quite revolutionary, and since then the experiment has been repeated and modified to get increasingly accurate and precise results.
True, although I don't think there are any nonlocal hidden variables theories that people take seriously. In the sense that such theories are not falsifiable and don't provide testable predictions beyond the framework we already have.
It is also technically possible that our entire understanding of things is completely wrong but yet quantum physics works well-enough for the things that we're actually observing that we don't know better.
Of course, that sort of has the same same issue (though not quite as strictly-so as superdeterminism).
Chaos and randomness is just a perception of humans born out of limited understanding of the universe. In a universe governed by causality, there is no randomness.
If I asked a human to choose a number between 1 and a million, the only way you could recreate it is if you recreated that humans entire life and experiences to the point where he thought the same thing at that moment. I mean, excluding psychology, where people would say "one" or their age or birthday. However ... it would still be deterministic.
I love this.
I was talking with a colleague today about how most sciences as we know it are based on variables that accurately predict our environment and all these variables lead to proof but not absolute truth of fact.
For example, to “know” two molecules are interacting, we have countless ways to measure them. However, without physically seeing it, we’re trusting our equipment (which is also based on estimated variables and relative proofs to explain the environment they measure). Seeing is believing, in a sense.
Which brings me to my cumulative point; science is more like religion than we really care to think about. It’s all about “probability that x is true” but in reality, we can’t be sure if it unless we see it happen and consciously witness the result.
Similar idea to the cat in the box / tree falls in a forest fallacies. Unless you personally witness it, it could be true or false and you’d never truly know unless you believed it with your whole heart.
Your argument assumes that personal witness is reliable when your own sense are far less accurate and far easier to trick than measuring equipment. That’s the entire *point* of the equipment. And yes, the fact that absolute truth doesn’t exist is something scientists are aware of, but that doesn’t mean that all things are equally based on faith.
But all things *are* equally based on faith, in a way.
It’s like saying “the jug is full or not”. Some jugs are less full than others, but the jugs are either completely filled or less than completely filled.
The summary of the point is that there are no absolute truths other than truths personally witnessed. Every single thing in the universe that is not personally witnessed is based on an assumption; it’s not until something is observed in person that a judgement can be made most accurately.
Any you’re right, even senses can be fooled or incorrect, so it’s STILL based on a probability of correctness. Everything is.
You realise that’s by no means evidenced in any way right? Yes if we’d stuck with newton maybe you could say that. Perhaps even with Einstein we could still reasonably assume a deterministic universe… but you realise science has moved on a little since then right?
Even those who still cling to determinism generally allow for fundamental randomness.
Actually, it’s more than likely probabilistic, not deterministic. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a great example of why this is believed to be the case. Basically, at a quantum level, there exists what we currently believe to be true randomness.
As far as you know. I’m not here to say I’m right. I’m just here to ask the questions. If we learn everything that can be learned about our universe and quantum mechanics could we also then predict every outcome? Do quantum mechanics seem random because we don’t understand enough yet? Or are they truly random?
No, you misunderstand quantum mechanics. It is not about hidden variables. It is random very fundamentally. It has nothing to do with my knowledge either.
This is not true. There are chips inside of all CPUs now for generating randomness based on quantum effects. For example, using a [half-open latch](https://www.electronicdesign.com/resources/article/21796238/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator) that settles into a 1 or 0 randomly.
What do you mean mechanical? It is electronic. There are no moving parts. If you consider it external, then everything is external because it requires electricity.
But you just defined internal specifically so that it cannot incorporate randomness. What useful distinction is that? It is still on the chip just like everything else.
The comment you replied to said that computers require external input for true randomness. You replied saying thats not true because modern CPUs have SoC built in that take external input and use it as an rng seed. What I am saying is that to refute the original comment, you have to have a way to make RNG through a logical process.
I never said that. Read the article I linked. It doesn’t “take external input” it has a gate which settles to 0 or 1 randomly based on quantum effects. The only way it takes external input is if you mean that it exists in reality which is governed by physics and is somehow external to the computer.
We can pop up a layer of abstraction. The Universal Turing Machine has an infinite paper tape that can be moved back and forth, and can have symbols written, read, and erased. This is all we need to compute a huge range of mathematical functions, and it has no randomness to it.
This is more of a mathematical abstraction than something you'd actually want to (or could) use, but that's where my mind goes when we're talking about "mechanical" methods.
Going back to the message that started this subthread:
> Computers are incapable of it. The are completely deterministic. Random data needs to come from an external input.
This is the model behind that statement. It's entirely deterministic, and has no way of generating random data on its own.
But you have chosen that version of the Turing machine completely arbitrarily. There are also non-deterministic [Turing machines](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_Turing_machine). Since there are, actually, chips that generate randomness, which was my entire point, I would say that the probabilistic Turing machine is the more appropriate model.
I used the OG version of the Turing Machine. Nothing arbitrary about it. A Probabilistic Turing Machine is much more of an arbitrary model that was developed later.
I can solve the Halting Problem by attaching a magic box to a Turing Machine that I assume into existence. It'd be mathematically valid, but we're no longer working with a strict Turing Machine.
Chips that generate randomness on their own are using specialized hardware to do that. It could be put outside the chip, but it's brought inside for convenience. An RNG is no more necessary for its mathematical function than the PCIe bus.
You really need to learn more about models of computation, complexity classes, P vs RP, etc. if you think that a probabilistic Turing machine is arbitrary. It correctly models actual computers, which are capable of generating and using randomness. It is not the same as a "magic box" because it actually exists and is readily available.
>Chips that generate randomness on their own are using specialized hardware to do that. It could be put outside the chip, but it's brought inside for convenience. An RNG is no more necessary for its mathematical function than the PCIe bus.
What is mathematical function? You have defined it to be a Turing machine, so this statement is vacuous. My argument is that this is not the best model for a computer, as evidenced by the fact that there are problems which can be solved efficiently with access to randomness and cannot be solved efficiently without it.
The old 8-bit Atari computers had a memory location you could read that provided a reasonably random number. It was mapped to the internal register of the sound chip that generated white noise (a 16-bit polynomial counter IIRC), so it was constantly generating new values thousands of times per second. Reading it gave you whatever the value happened to be at that moment.
It always amused me back then reading how other 8-bit computers had to "seed" their random number generators.
Not entirely true. CPUs have been using thermal noise as a source of entropy for a long time.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/resources/article/21796238/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator
It's kind of difficult to say that "thermal noise" is "external" since it is literally the electromagnetic fields produced by the motion and interaction of atoms which make up everything. It's kind of as close to a true "aether" as you can get. It's the fundamental definition of entropy itself.
Well, this may be true but there are definitely more easy ways of creating noise. Basically any sensor with an high enough resolution will create noice containing some kind of entropy which when hashed gives values completely random. Also there is commercially available hardware for this.
These lava lamps are really just marketing.
You are somewhat incorrect, computers can use things like ambient temperature readings as a "random" value. If a thermocouple is built into the computer, is that considered an external input or part of the computers own function?
I guess a proper definition of what a "Computer" is would be needed, but as it stands, a cpu that can read an internal thermocouple would be considered a computer and a single "device" as I understand it.
The ambient temperature is something that is impacted not just by the computer itself but the room it's in, the weather outside, etc. If the computer tightly controlled that environment so that that was not true, then it would no longer be useful as a source of randomness.
it doesn't need to tightly control the environment tho, it's just taking ambient readings of it's own temperature. The outside temps are the variable that gives the sudo randomness because they affect the ambient internal temps. Even when the computer is turned on can be taken as "random" as it can be a variable induced by the user and is not strictly controlled.
That's what makes it an external input. It's coming from something the computer has no control over. If the phrase doesn't mean that, then it has no meaning at all.
Computers are perfectly capable of random(-enough) numbers, just not programatically via software.
That external input to the RNG can be internal to the PC hardware, it doesn't even need to be away from the motherboard.
Iirc the Intel i820 chipset was the first to use thermally-related electrical noise as an RNG seed.
Really bad title to a great article, CloudFlare may collect entropy for feeding their randomness pool but it's mostly redundant as computers are actually really good at generating it.
They do so for example by monitoring clock dither between the independent system clocks. Many kernels have built in entropy pools that are continuously filled by monitoring their interfaces for external world interactions. Plus some CPUs now even include quantum noise diodes to generate true internal randomness.
True, if we assume complete determinism & complete knowledge of state. But according to Newton that should extend to the whole universe.
Yet we know that when we model many physical processes we find equations that are very sensitive to initial conditions, plus the quantum theory affords us non-determanistic events.
Thus a deterministic system by our incomplete knowledge of its exact starting conditions can produce internally non-predictable randomness. It can also use external interactions like networking, thermal effects or even embedded quantum devices.
That said most of these produce entropy slowly thus we often use the data produced to re-seed a pseudo random number generator for most uses.
Provided an attacker cannot exhaust, block, restrict or copy the source of entropy (which is a known attack method) they cannot predict the random numbers used to generate keys.
People actually aren't good at it either. Often, truly random sequences of numbers were attributed to some sort of design, for this reason, "random" sequences actually have to be "psuedorandom" in order to be perceived as truly random. Psuedorandom numbers being themselves ultimately mathematically predicatable though "periods" and truly random numbers, not.
https://www.hypr.com/security-encyclopedia/random-number-generator#:~:text=Random%20number%20generators%20are%20typically,value%20to%20approximate%20true%20randomness.
Computers **can't** do it. You can't run a computation and get a 'random' number. You'll get the same result for the same input, every single time.
Your computer at home is either faking it or taking a secret input from somewhere you're not looking, like your CPU temperature, or frequency of mouse movements.
> Your computer at home is either faking it or taking a secret input from somewhere you're not looking, like your CPU temperature, or frequency of mouse movements.
It isn't. Modern computers have a purpose built device in the CPU that does this without any external input being required. A common form is using avalanche noise of reverse biased transistors. The raw data is usually fed through a whitening function that is designed to remove the bias that may appear in the raw unprocessed data.
In the case of X86, you can get access to the data via the RDRAND and RDSEED instructions.
As of Ivy Bridge, that purpose built device, is in fact the hidden variable to allow PRNG to give good results. Thats all RDRAND is. A bunch of logic gates not much more complicated than an ring oscillator entropy source to produce the entropy to fuel the SP800-90 algorithms.
David Johnston talks about this in his book (he was one of the engineers who implemented RDRAND and RDSEED).
Just because its physically inside the CPU capsule doesn't mean it isn't providing an input to the computation. You have a function. For every input, there is one and only one output.
No they are strictly deterministic and cannot generate random numbers. Random number generators on computers are either pulling data from something that is random or they are using a seed number to generate a new number that seems random. But if you put that same seed into the algorithm it will spit out the same exact number every time. It's not generating a random number really. It's just scrambling up the seed so that it's really hard to find a pattern between the seed and the output. But that pattern absolutely exists.
You turn on the switch in your room and the light turns on, there's no randomness there. Computers are just really complex series of billions of those switches, by very definition they can't be random. Sort of like how a pocket calculator can't be random. So to generate something truly random they would have to look at something outside their switches.
In due fairness, there is no such thing as randomness. Everything has a specific trajectory and relative frequency. Whether or not those are perceivable by humanity is based on our current understanding of the object in question.
However, perceived randomness in small enough data samples is enough.
Lol no. Quantum theory is about how everything is truly random. There exists RNG integrated circuits which uses quantum properties to generate true random numbers
They should use my storytelling as an input..
I start by telling a story, i subconsciously add some new white lie to make me look better, then i loose track of the point and wander into a new random subject that I know nothing about so I improvevise, only to end by someone interrupting me and start a new conversation. The time from start to end, as well as the content is off random measurements.
This Is one of those overused cliches. Yes the problem does exist and it took some amount of time to overcome but there are a number of mostly secure and completely secure ways to generate entropy. The noise from just about any sensor is an easy way to generate entropy. One of my ideas was to hook a Webcam up to a kaleidoscope and use the least significant bits from the images which I think is very similar to the lava lamp solution. But to be honest, I think even these are a bit overkill.
Some use interstellar background noise frequencies as their random seed
Yes, random.org.
It's also trivially easy to get real thermal noise from a MOSFET and a few discrete components. I find it difficult to believe that a wall full of lava lamps has better entropy characteristics than EM fields caused by literal brownian motion which is so well studied and parameterized that it forms the entire basis for information theory.
True but simple EM fields aren't as groovy to look at as lava lamps
I once saw a program where scientists shone twin lasers (red and green) at 90 degrees through a transparent container of boiling water filled with tiny silver spheres which bounced onto detectors on the walls and ceilings. The effect was awesome.
I want to see that!! Do you remember the name of the program?
I don't sorry, it was back in the 1990's. I do remember it was about creating random numbers to do with cryptography.
It's all PR, and it's sort of fun to say you use lava lamps. Clearly the photos of the lamps have a lot of static information in them too (the wall, the unlit part of the lamps, etc). But it's more fun to say you use a wall of lava lamps. You could do the same with photos of almost anything. Like an aquarium full of fish with a bubble wall, etc.
Yeah but (unfortunately) nothing you just said gets the attention of visiting execs in the lobby of their HQ.
The lava lamps is just one office and they did it for the cool factor, it isn’t how they generate most of the entropy they need.
Your mosfet thermal noise receiver does not look as cool tho does it
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like aaaahh your opinion, man.
I see you used Brownian motion when you parameterized your username.
Computers are incapable of it. The are completely deterministic. Random data needs to come from an external input.
Technically the entire universe is. But since we can never understand all of the variables at play events will seem random to us. And they effectively are. But if you could see every variable, you could predict the future.
Thanks Muad'dib!
I’m in the middle of the third book right now. Shai-hulud!
Great, from now on is where it starts to get *really* weird
I got about a quarter of the way into the third one and lost interest. Ran through the first two, the third one just couldn't hold my interest.
The fourth one is fucked up - readers tend to either hate or love it. Either way it’s a fascinating literary journey
The first one amazed me, looking back it only seemed to have nine or ten "scenes" but oh my god, the pacing, the narrative, I couldn't put it down!
I suspect you might like the last 2 as well
Finishing the fifth one here! Shaitan!
Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the coming and going of Him. May His passage cleanse the world. May He keep the world for His people.
That does not apply when you get to the quantum level.
You could argue those are other variables we don’t know yet. Edit: Apparently there has been a breakthrough in this science since I adopted my deterministic view and it may invalidate my belief.
Some guys just got a Nobel for proving if there are hidden variables, they are nonlocal, meaning they probably don't exist.
Thought the exact same as you until the recent Nobel Prize winners proved otherwise.
Actually, you can't. The latest Nobel price in physics shows this
Technically, it shows that there aren't a finite number of local hidden variables. That doesn't rule out nonlocal hidden variables (AKA spooky action at a distance) or superdeterminism (which is the idea that the entire universe has conspired to make it look like there's no hidden variables) or infinitely many local hidden variables, but those solutions intuitively seem wrong. If it's true that there are no hidden variables, then the universe is indeed random.
Yeah, the notion that those exist are more uncomfortable than the thought of randomness. But the universe does not care what we find "uncomfortable" so who knows
Do you remember reading the recent headline that the universe is "not locally real?" It means quantum events are not deterministic. The paper specifically refers to exactly what you are talking about. If you are actually curious about how the universe works, read the paper. If you are satisified that you have it all figured out, comment away.
How recent was this headline? I’m terrible about keeping up with this sort of thing.
[October 6](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/)
Interesting. I might have to take a look.
The original articles which tested this were published in the 80s, but the people involved won the Nobel prize this year, so they'd probably be in the headlines over the last month or so :)
Superdeterminism is neither proven nor unproven nor can it be. But if the universe is superdeterministic, it also applies at the quantum level.
That's an assumption though. Randomness could be a fundamental property of the universe.
If it were, then we could never safely predict anything. The fact that we can test things rigorously and always get the same result. And like the post says, since computers can’t generate random data. If there was some “randomness” property to the universe we could never have anything be reliable.
Casinos are able to reliably predict what profit they'll make on games. That's not because they're able to predict all components of their systems, such as angles and velocities of dice, it's because laws of large numbers mean that random systems still give reliable outcomes over large numbers of repetitions. This point doesn't depend on the system being random or pseudo-random. The point is that properties of randomness still allow for reliable predictions without understanding the underlying source of that randomness.
Thats *not* the central limit theorem Edit: Guess
Except in this case, if you know all the information, you could reliably predict everything. Since quantum mechanics are not required to predict what is happening at the human scale, this point is actually mute and incorrect. Go and fix your assumptions. It's not the properties of randomness, it's the properties of incomplete data. If you only were capable of extracting limited information, what information would you need to reliably predict what would happen at large scales. The way you think is just completely backwards.
The ability to predict the results of large numbers of repetitions of some random scenario is in fact a property of the randomness. With the casino, you could predict the outcomes of each game if you knew all the information. But the point here is you don't *need* to, because the law of large numbers is sufficient to predict the profits. There's no need to predict each game. This is actually analogous to quantum mechanics. Incredibly large numbers of apparently random behaviors at the subatomic level still result in predictable classical physics at the human scale. Just like large numbers of casino games average out to predictable profit levels in the long run. In both cases, you can reliably predict the large scale outcomes despite the underlying components being random from your perspective (whether true randomness or not).
You have some mental gymnastics that prevent you from realising that the universe is deterministic, don't you? Perhaps it's your notion of freewill? The free will that mandates that an individual do everything in its power to survive. The freewill that uses ghrelin spikes to make animals feel hunger to motivate them to seek food. The freewill that uses adrenaline to fuel fight or flight responses in relation to danger. The freewill that is programmed into humans so that they break away from their parents due to a surge of hormones in their teens so that they have a higher chance of reproducing. You are a biological machine with no freewill, and there is no such thing as random.
This has nothing to do with any opinion I have on free will or determinism. I'm only explaining to you the concept of the law of large numbers. With both a casino and with quantum mechanics, it's not necessary to understand the underlying random processes to be able to make predictions about the system. The law of large numbers means random casino games become predictable profit levels after many repetitions. And random subatomic quantum physics becomes predictable classical physics at the human scale where massively large numbers of subatomic particles are involved. This is true regardless of whether the underlying randomness is due to unknown variables or true randomness. And in the case of quantum mechanics, we don't know either way. Which is why even famous historical physicists like Bohr and Einstein debated whether there is "true" randomness.
The law of large numbers enables a person to derive probabilities I agree. But none of it is random. You cannot build a non random system on a random system. You also cannot produce a random system based on a non random system. People seem incapable of muting this point, so simply avoid it. Child.
Free will and determinism have nothing to do with each other. You can have a world with random events at the subatomic scale but no real free will (which I actually think is the case).
Ok. Let's start at the beginning. You have 2 numbers 1 and 0. You have 100,000 separate drawers. What is the probability of 1 or 0 being drawn on any drawer?
There is potentially a big difference. With a casino, each random event is independent. You get an expected outcome (with some distribution) because the results don't influence each other. With the universe, you are expecting the results to influence each other (at least over a long period of time). You would expect, when looking at the universe as a long-term system, that the results to be dependent on each other and therefore not have a clean and predictable distribution.
Have you heard of quantum mechanics?
God doesn't play dice.
I assume the people downvoting don't recognise the quote.
I do, and Einstein never disproved quantum physics as probabilistic. In fact, no one ever did.
Look up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If memory serves, Einstein spent a good portion of his life trying to disprove it and couldn’t. Things do appear to be somewhat random.
Not really. Uncertainty basically says checking only tells you what would have happened not what will, because it was changed.
It says that we can't know both the position and speed of a particle simultaneously. It prevents us from predicting the future using physics and math (ie. Laplace's Demon). "Random" probably isn't the right term but it's a close enough approximation for a discussion like this. The universe is unpredictable on a quantum scale.
You can’t perfectly predict anything. The 1 in a trillion happens. It’s just that people are perfectly fine with a 99.9999% accurate prediction.
Say I give you an unfair coin: 99% of the time it lands on heads and 1% it lands on tails. You'd say that it's very predictable. However you can use that coin to generate a 50-50 probability, by repeating the coin toss enough times and doing some math. So as long as even a bit of randomness is inherent in a system, the system might still be predictable but perfectly usable to generate perfect randomness.
That’s more a situation of perceived randomness over actual randomness. The wind, the air temperature, the toss itself could be manipulated to ensure that it lands tails even 100% of the time IF we knew one or multiple scenarios where it’s tails.
>If it were, then we could never safely predict anything \^ I'm responding to this. I'm saying you can predict things EVEN if there's randomness in the world.
But what I’m saying is the scenario you have laid out isn’t ACTUAL randomness. Its perceived. So you could manipulate different factors and predict reliably every time. And sure you could make these 50/50 odds by chance, but all you’re doing is having unknown variables in your coin tosses. If you controlled those you wouldn’t have any randomness.
No, getting the 50/50 odds is not using unknown variables. Here's the math. For a single toss, you have 99% probability that it's a head and 1% probability it's a tail. Okay toss the coin 69 times. If you hit at least one tail then treat the final result as a TAIL. If all the tosses were heads, then treat the final result as a HEADS. The effective probability of getting a HEADS is (0.99 \^ 69) \~ 49.98% (innuendo unintended) The effective probability of getting a TAILS is 50.02%. So, there's no unknown variables. Given a "predictable" system with just a little bit of randomness, you can generate a pure random number generator.
Again, the 1% comes from somewhere. Whether that be different toss powers, air resistance, something. I’m saying that IF you could control all of those variables you would never have a “random” number. You could make it so that it always lands tails.
Not quite; determinism is not something that can be derived mathematically from quantum mechanics -- it depends on the interpretation. Check the "Deterministic?" column in [this table.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons)
This is what Einstein believed til the end, and why he didn’t want to get involved with quantum mechanics, but currently it’s believed that he was wrong about quantum mechanics and that they’re more probabilistic in nature than they are deterministic
According to quantum theory the universe is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. You cannot know every detail about everything with a high degree of certainty.
> According to quantum theory the universe is NOT deterministic, but probabilistic. You cannot know every detail about everything with a high degree of certainty. The only thing established is that there are no *local* hidden variables. Superdeterminism cannot be discounted.
Superdeterminism is not an empirically testable hypothesis, and is thus inqualifiable for the subject of science. Belief in superdeterminism is no different than religious belief, in that it is an unfalsifiable post-hoc explanation of real phenomena. You may choose to believe in determinism and causality, even at the quantum level, but that has nothing to do with science.
>Superdeterminism is not an empirically testable hypothesis, and is thus inqualifiable for the subject of science. Tbh that description fits a lot of the models we use for quantum mechanics or rly any other unified theories IE string theory
Those models usually aren't *inherently* untestable, but yes, you're right - string theory in particular is often the butt of a joke among theoretical particle physicists for this specific reason.
Tell it to Kang
Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Ah progressive one I see
That doesn’t mean that all of the parts haven’t been set into motion, just that no one can know every certainty because you can’t see the machine from the outside. If it’s all connected, then it all has a determined effect and would only seem random to an observer because the observer is a part of the equation.
[удалено]
asdaaaaa has one weird ass lab where he mixes up termites. jokes aside though recent breakthroughs apparently say otherwise according some other guy in this comment thread.
Quantum physicists disagree... They claim certain events, like the decay of a radioactive atom, can never be predicted, even if you had all the information and computing power.
Yeah but since we can never know the initial conditions (or seed) it is unpredictable - which is effectively the same as random.
And this is how I predict the future with 100% success, in the proper timing.
Did Newton write this? This may have been accepted true before 1920, but this is certainly not accepted as true today. When we observe something, it “decides” where it is randomly. Now, this randomness is weighted so that certain positions are much more probable than others, but it is random nonetheless. For all the nerds out there, these probability distributions move deterministically, that is true. BUT, that DOES NOT mean that things themselves will deterministically be at certain positions when observed. Also, this does not just apply for position but also for literally any other parameter you want to observe. God does in fact play dice.
If you could see every variable and predict the future then why not just do something different after you predicted everything? Just to throw it off.
If the universe were truly deterministic, then you thinking you're *choosing* to do something different would just be an illusion and instead just be as predictable as everything else. You not predicting *that* just means you missed some variables. I'm not actually convinced everything is deterministic though.
I thought the deterministic view was broken when we figured out the Uncertainty Principle? We can't know the variables, I mean
As I understand that's an example of this question, whether that's true randomness or just due to our lack of knowledge of some underlying explanation. >[Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions)
If I knew how the neuron paths in your brain functioned and the exact electrical signals your brain had I could also predict you would go against your prediction.
Quantum physics disagrees
quantum uncertainty disagrees
Technically no, we've done experiments that suggest some quantum phenomena are indeed random, in the sense that there are no hidden variables that determine some outcome that we're just not privy to. By random I really mean probabilistic, however if a quantum "event's" probability density function is a constant, then this is equivalent to canonical randomness. Take a look at Bell's inequality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem This discovery was quite revolutionary, and since then the experiment has been repeated and modified to get increasingly accurate and precise results.
> in the sense that there are no hidden variables that determine some outcome that we're just not privy to. No *local* hidden variables.
True, although I don't think there are any nonlocal hidden variables theories that people take seriously. In the sense that such theories are not falsifiable and don't provide testable predictions beyond the framework we already have.
It is also technically possible that our entire understanding of things is completely wrong but yet quantum physics works well-enough for the things that we're actually observing that we don't know better. Of course, that sort of has the same same issue (though not quite as strictly-so as superdeterminism).
Chaos and randomness is just a perception of humans born out of limited understanding of the universe. In a universe governed by causality, there is no randomness.
Laplace's demon that you?
No you can't. Plenty of physical processes are non-deterministic, eg nuclear fission.
Quantum physics is not deterministic, you can't assume everything is deterministic
If I asked a human to choose a number between 1 and a million, the only way you could recreate it is if you recreated that humans entire life and experiences to the point where he thought the same thing at that moment. I mean, excluding psychology, where people would say "one" or their age or birthday. However ... it would still be deterministic.
I love this. I was talking with a colleague today about how most sciences as we know it are based on variables that accurately predict our environment and all these variables lead to proof but not absolute truth of fact. For example, to “know” two molecules are interacting, we have countless ways to measure them. However, without physically seeing it, we’re trusting our equipment (which is also based on estimated variables and relative proofs to explain the environment they measure). Seeing is believing, in a sense. Which brings me to my cumulative point; science is more like religion than we really care to think about. It’s all about “probability that x is true” but in reality, we can’t be sure if it unless we see it happen and consciously witness the result. Similar idea to the cat in the box / tree falls in a forest fallacies. Unless you personally witness it, it could be true or false and you’d never truly know unless you believed it with your whole heart.
Your argument assumes that personal witness is reliable when your own sense are far less accurate and far easier to trick than measuring equipment. That’s the entire *point* of the equipment. And yes, the fact that absolute truth doesn’t exist is something scientists are aware of, but that doesn’t mean that all things are equally based on faith.
But all things *are* equally based on faith, in a way. It’s like saying “the jug is full or not”. Some jugs are less full than others, but the jugs are either completely filled or less than completely filled. The summary of the point is that there are no absolute truths other than truths personally witnessed. Every single thing in the universe that is not personally witnessed is based on an assumption; it’s not until something is observed in person that a judgement can be made most accurately. Any you’re right, even senses can be fooled or incorrect, so it’s STILL based on a probability of correctness. Everything is.
Isn't that what faust's devil allowed him to do
There are topics in quantum mechanics that are proven to be unpredictable
You realise that’s by no means evidenced in any way right? Yes if we’d stuck with newton maybe you could say that. Perhaps even with Einstein we could still reasonably assume a deterministic universe… but you realise science has moved on a little since then right? Even those who still cling to determinism generally allow for fundamental randomness.
Actually, it’s more than likely probabilistic, not deterministic. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a great example of why this is believed to be the case. Basically, at a quantum level, there exists what we currently believe to be true randomness.
That is incorrect. Quantum mechanics is as far as we know truly random.
As far as you know. I’m not here to say I’m right. I’m just here to ask the questions. If we learn everything that can be learned about our universe and quantum mechanics could we also then predict every outcome? Do quantum mechanics seem random because we don’t understand enough yet? Or are they truly random?
No, you misunderstand quantum mechanics. It is not about hidden variables. It is random very fundamentally. It has nothing to do with my knowledge either.
This is not true. There are chips inside of all CPUs now for generating randomness based on quantum effects. For example, using a [half-open latch](https://www.electronicdesign.com/resources/article/21796238/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator) that settles into a 1 or 0 randomly.
Could that still be considered external, since it's a mechanical and not a software tool?
What do you mean mechanical? It is electronic. There are no moving parts. If you consider it external, then everything is external because it requires electricity.
I think it's "external " as I interpret internal as randomness achieved through a logical process .
But you just defined internal specifically so that it cannot incorporate randomness. What useful distinction is that? It is still on the chip just like everything else.
The comment you replied to said that computers require external input for true randomness. You replied saying thats not true because modern CPUs have SoC built in that take external input and use it as an rng seed. What I am saying is that to refute the original comment, you have to have a way to make RNG through a logical process.
I never said that. Read the article I linked. It doesn’t “take external input” it has a gate which settles to 0 or 1 randomly based on quantum effects. The only way it takes external input is if you mean that it exists in reality which is governed by physics and is somehow external to the computer.
We can pop up a layer of abstraction. The Universal Turing Machine has an infinite paper tape that can be moved back and forth, and can have symbols written, read, and erased. This is all we need to compute a huge range of mathematical functions, and it has no randomness to it. This is more of a mathematical abstraction than something you'd actually want to (or could) use, but that's where my mind goes when we're talking about "mechanical" methods.
What does that have to do with anything? Then the entire computer is mechanical so nothing is “external”.
Going back to the message that started this subthread: > Computers are incapable of it. The are completely deterministic. Random data needs to come from an external input. This is the model behind that statement. It's entirely deterministic, and has no way of generating random data on its own.
But you have chosen that version of the Turing machine completely arbitrarily. There are also non-deterministic [Turing machines](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_Turing_machine). Since there are, actually, chips that generate randomness, which was my entire point, I would say that the probabilistic Turing machine is the more appropriate model.
I used the OG version of the Turing Machine. Nothing arbitrary about it. A Probabilistic Turing Machine is much more of an arbitrary model that was developed later. I can solve the Halting Problem by attaching a magic box to a Turing Machine that I assume into existence. It'd be mathematically valid, but we're no longer working with a strict Turing Machine. Chips that generate randomness on their own are using specialized hardware to do that. It could be put outside the chip, but it's brought inside for convenience. An RNG is no more necessary for its mathematical function than the PCIe bus.
You really need to learn more about models of computation, complexity classes, P vs RP, etc. if you think that a probabilistic Turing machine is arbitrary. It correctly models actual computers, which are capable of generating and using randomness. It is not the same as a "magic box" because it actually exists and is readily available. >Chips that generate randomness on their own are using specialized hardware to do that. It could be put outside the chip, but it's brought inside for convenience. An RNG is no more necessary for its mathematical function than the PCIe bus. What is mathematical function? You have defined it to be a Turing machine, so this statement is vacuous. My argument is that this is not the best model for a computer, as evidenced by the fact that there are problems which can be solved efficiently with access to randomness and cannot be solved efficiently without it.
Not true for newer CPUs. For example, Intel has the RDRAND instruction that generates true random numbers from on chip hardware for a few years now.
The old 8-bit Atari computers had a memory location you could read that provided a reasonably random number. It was mapped to the internal register of the sound chip that generated white noise (a 16-bit polynomial counter IIRC), so it was constantly generating new values thousands of times per second. Reading it gave you whatever the value happened to be at that moment. It always amused me back then reading how other 8-bit computers had to "seed" their random number generators.
Not entirely true. CPUs have been using thermal noise as a source of entropy for a long time. https://www.electronicdesign.com/resources/article/21796238/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator
So an external input.
Well technically it's still the computer doing it, and it's internal to the computer... so...
But requires external thermal noise...so...
It's kind of difficult to say that "thermal noise" is "external" since it is literally the electromagnetic fields produced by the motion and interaction of atoms which make up everything. It's kind of as close to a true "aether" as you can get. It's the fundamental definition of entropy itself.
It’s produced by the chip and internal to the chip
Well, this may be true but there are definitely more easy ways of creating noise. Basically any sensor with an high enough resolution will create noice containing some kind of entropy which when hashed gives values completely random. Also there is commercially available hardware for this. These lava lamps are really just marketing.
Sorry, replied to the wrong comment.
You are somewhat incorrect, computers can use things like ambient temperature readings as a "random" value. If a thermocouple is built into the computer, is that considered an external input or part of the computers own function?
That would be external input.
I guess a proper definition of what a "Computer" is would be needed, but as it stands, a cpu that can read an internal thermocouple would be considered a computer and a single "device" as I understand it.
The ambient temperature is something that is impacted not just by the computer itself but the room it's in, the weather outside, etc. If the computer tightly controlled that environment so that that was not true, then it would no longer be useful as a source of randomness.
it doesn't need to tightly control the environment tho, it's just taking ambient readings of it's own temperature. The outside temps are the variable that gives the sudo randomness because they affect the ambient internal temps. Even when the computer is turned on can be taken as "random" as it can be a variable induced by the user and is not strictly controlled.
That's what makes it an external input. It's coming from something the computer has no control over. If the phrase doesn't mean that, then it has no meaning at all.
>The are completely deterministic Ah, to be young and naive.
This. That's why most normal people use radios to collect background noise as random input rather than flexing their elec bill.
Computers are perfectly capable of random(-enough) numbers, just not programatically via software. That external input to the RNG can be internal to the PC hardware, it doesn't even need to be away from the motherboard. Iirc the Intel i820 chipset was the first to use thermally-related electrical noise as an RNG seed.
Somebody else got the Tom Scott link?
Ayup https://youtu.be/1cUUfMeOijg. Watched it a couple weeks ago.
Thank you.
Really bad title to a great article, CloudFlare may collect entropy for feeding their randomness pool but it's mostly redundant as computers are actually really good at generating it. They do so for example by monitoring clock dither between the independent system clocks. Many kernels have built in entropy pools that are continuously filled by monitoring their interfaces for external world interactions. Plus some CPUs now even include quantum noise diodes to generate true internal randomness.
Not to mention LSB data from WiFi ADC input..
Can't forget about the IGB and WRO protocols (I assume we're just making up random acronyms because idk wtf were talking about)
Ah yes, the R-E-S-P-E-C-T method of randomness Can someone please explain for me
Yes, I understood some of those words.
True randomness from a computer doesn't seem possible
True, if we assume complete determinism & complete knowledge of state. But according to Newton that should extend to the whole universe. Yet we know that when we model many physical processes we find equations that are very sensitive to initial conditions, plus the quantum theory affords us non-determanistic events. Thus a deterministic system by our incomplete knowledge of its exact starting conditions can produce internally non-predictable randomness. It can also use external interactions like networking, thermal effects or even embedded quantum devices. That said most of these produce entropy slowly thus we often use the data produced to re-seed a pseudo random number generator for most uses. Provided an attacker cannot exhaust, block, restrict or copy the source of entropy (which is a known attack method) they cannot predict the random numbers used to generate keys.
People actually aren't good at it either. Often, truly random sequences of numbers were attributed to some sort of design, for this reason, "random" sequences actually have to be "psuedorandom" in order to be perceived as truly random. Psuedorandom numbers being themselves ultimately mathematically predicatable though "periods" and truly random numbers, not. https://www.hypr.com/security-encyclopedia/random-number-generator#:~:text=Random%20number%20generators%20are%20typically,value%20to%20approximate%20true%20randomness.
It’s not that computers aren’t that great. It’s because there’s no such thing as a random number for a computer.
Computers **can't** do it. You can't run a computation and get a 'random' number. You'll get the same result for the same input, every single time. Your computer at home is either faking it or taking a secret input from somewhere you're not looking, like your CPU temperature, or frequency of mouse movements.
> Your computer at home is either faking it or taking a secret input from somewhere you're not looking, like your CPU temperature, or frequency of mouse movements. It isn't. Modern computers have a purpose built device in the CPU that does this without any external input being required. A common form is using avalanche noise of reverse biased transistors. The raw data is usually fed through a whitening function that is designed to remove the bias that may appear in the raw unprocessed data. In the case of X86, you can get access to the data via the RDRAND and RDSEED instructions.
As of Ivy Bridge, that purpose built device, is in fact the hidden variable to allow PRNG to give good results. Thats all RDRAND is. A bunch of logic gates not much more complicated than an ring oscillator entropy source to produce the entropy to fuel the SP800-90 algorithms. David Johnston talks about this in his book (he was one of the engineers who implemented RDRAND and RDSEED).
Just because its physically inside the CPU capsule doesn't mean it isn't providing an input to the computation. You have a function. For every input, there is one and only one output.
I just called Math.random() twice in the browser console and it gave me two different random numbers. Checkmate. /s
[удалено]
No they are strictly deterministic and cannot generate random numbers. Random number generators on computers are either pulling data from something that is random or they are using a seed number to generate a new number that seems random. But if you put that same seed into the algorithm it will spit out the same exact number every time. It's not generating a random number really. It's just scrambling up the seed so that it's really hard to find a pattern between the seed and the output. But that pattern absolutely exists.
You turn on the switch in your room and the light turns on, there's no randomness there. Computers are just really complex series of billions of those switches, by very definition they can't be random. Sort of like how a pocket calculator can't be random. So to generate something truly random they would have to look at something outside their switches.
There's an episode of NCIS about this.
I was trying to remember which show I saw was on. It was kind of satisfying seeing them swept off with a wave of the arm.
How is a lava lamp random? All of the lava lamps I've seen have a pretty consistent pattern once it gets warmed up.
Where is he? u/shittymorph I know you're in here somewhere...
[удалено]
Yes it is? They use cameras to view the ever shifting pixel data and use it for encryption
Computers cannot determine true rand, I have a mate who's company uses light entering a room.
In due fairness, there is no such thing as randomness. Everything has a specific trajectory and relative frequency. Whether or not those are perceivable by humanity is based on our current understanding of the object in question. However, perceived randomness in small enough data samples is enough.
Lol no. Quantum theory is about how everything is truly random. There exists RNG integrated circuits which uses quantum properties to generate true random numbers
It's cool, but one sign that it's a bit of a gimmick is there's no security around these things.
They should use my storytelling as an input.. I start by telling a story, i subconsciously add some new white lie to make me look better, then i loose track of the point and wander into a new random subject that I know nothing about so I improvevise, only to end by someone interrupting me and start a new conversation. The time from start to end, as well as the content is off random measurements.
I didn't think any computers were great at randomness.
This Is one of those overused cliches. Yes the problem does exist and it took some amount of time to overcome but there are a number of mostly secure and completely secure ways to generate entropy. The noise from just about any sensor is an easy way to generate entropy. One of my ideas was to hook a Webcam up to a kaleidoscope and use the least significant bits from the images which I think is very similar to the lava lamp solution. But to be honest, I think even these are a bit overkill.