They aren't. Modern random number generators use the current time down to some tiny fraction of a second as a seed to generate a "random" number.
They aren't. Modern random number generators use the current time down to some tiny fraction of a second as a seed to generate a "random" number.dank69 may be getting at the point that those random numbers aren't actually random.
Make sure you read the text. The first example calls random, so let's swipe that if we're not permitting 'computer random' to really be random. In examples 1-5, 1 is utilizing actual randomness, not programmed random calls, to facilitate nondetermination. Point 3 specifically cites the need for unpredictable random number generation, it's actually using nondeterministic source data to generate numbers. You inevitably end up with nondeterministic results.As we all know, the call to random is not actually random. In fact, all of your other examples say "random" except the last one. And the last one, while it seems genuinely random in that we aren't using a random generator, the results vary based on very physical variables within the hardware.
It may all be random enough for the desired purposes, and thus qualify as nondeterministic in a computer science way, but nobody would claim these programs have "free will." All their "choices" are made based on current conditions at the time of the "choice." Given the required time, resources, and tools, the choices could all be traced back to both the programmer and the hardware conditions. The computer could not have acted in any different way at each nanosecond or picosecond or whatever.
They are if they're backed by random events, as in, events that don't necessarily return the same results if you ran it again from the same point in time.dank69 may be getting at the point that those random numbers aren't actually random.
There's RNG's whos' source data comes from physical events, physical nondeterministic events. Again, unless you're claiming the universe is deterministic in which case nothing can actually be nondeterminstic (including choice).They aren't. Modern random number generators use the current time down to some tiny fraction of a second as a seed to generate a "random" number.
Yes, I believe that is the claim, and I don't know if anyone has been able to disprove it.There's RNG's whos' source data comes from physical events, physical nondeterministic events. Again, unless you're claiming the universe is deterministic in which case nothing can actually be nondeterminstic (including choice).
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect. Just because one can source an event back to the beginning of the universe doesn't mean that's the sole possible sequence of events that could lead to that event. It also doesn't mean it's the sole sequence of events that was 'destined' to lead to that event. Quantum physics would actually not be real if that was the case, as its dependent on nondeterministic effects. Again, unless you're prepared to say that nondeterministic events can take place within a deterministic universe, which seems rather insane.Yes, I believe that is the claim, and I don't know if anyone has been able to disprove it.
Do we understand quantum physics to be nondeterministic beyond all doubt? Or is it just beyond our understanding and so it looks nondeterministic?That's a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect. Just because one can source an event back to the beginning of the universe doesn't mean that's the sole possible sequence of events that could lead to that event. It also doesn't mean it's the sole sequence of events that was 'destined' to lead to that event. Quantum physics would actually not be real if that was the case, as its dependent on nondeterministic effects. Again, unless you're prepared to say that nondeterministic events can take place within a deterministic universe, which seems rather insane.
Yes, that's a fundamental principal of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as superposition. It's been experimentally backed up with quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. I suppose you could argue that the entire universe is simulated (I think it is) and thus it's simulated to appear random at the quantum level, but to claim that's definitely the case and that it's definitely deterministic in nature over 'actually the universe is just nondeterministic and we actually do have free will' will require some measure of proof.Do we understand quantum physics to be nondeterministic beyond all doubt? Or is it just beyond our understanding and so it looks nondeterministic?
I would never claim something for certain. I agree it is likely we are in a simulation. I think it is likely all deterministic.Yes, that's a fundamental principal of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as superposition. It's been experimentally backed up with quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. I suppose you could argue that the entire universe is simulated (I think it is) and thus it's simulated to appear random at the quantum level, but to claim that's definitely the case and that it's definitely deterministic in nature over 'actually the universe is just nondeterministic and we actually do have free will' will require some measure of proof.
Well, let's explore that, why would any sentient species develop a deterministic simulation? What would be the point of that?I would never claim something for certain. I agree it is likely we are in a simulation. I think it is likely all deterministic.
Not a fan of pilot-wave theory then, I take it?Yes, that's a fundamental principal of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as superposition. It's been experimentally backed up with quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. I suppose you could argue that the entire universe is simulated (I think it is) and thus it's simulated to appear random at the quantum level, but to claim that's definitely the case and that it's definitely deterministic in nature over 'actually the universe is just nondeterministic and we actually do have free will' will require some measure of proof.
No, because I personally believe that the disparity between quantum effects and classical effects is a hack within the simulation to avoid simulating extreme resolution. Pilot wave, and specifically determinism, requires near infinite energy to simulate (akin to a game simulating every atom within the game rather than abstracting). In addition, reliance on hidden variables feels very much like a crutch, reminds me too much of abandoned theories like string theory.Not a fan of pilot-wave theory then, I take it?
Deterministic to who? Perhaps it is their version of "nondeterministic enough for their purposes" the same way we "randomize" right now on more primitive technology. Maybe a child is literally trying to figure out the best physics engine to use for the new game he wants to create, or our entire universe is just one of a billion he is crunching to get the best AI developments to populate his procedural game world.Well, let's explore that, why would any sentient species develop a deterministic simulation? What would be the point of that?
Either it's deterministic or it isn't as far as I can tell. There's not really an in between there like there is with pseudo random numbers for instance.Deterministic to who? Perhaps it is their version of "nondeterministic enough for their purposes" the same way we "randomize" right now on more primitive technology. Maybe a child is literally trying to figure out the best physics engine to use for the new game he wants to create, or our entire universe is just one of a billion he is crunching to get the best AI developments to populate his procedural game world.
It's exactly the same as pseudorandom numbers. There are just vastly more variables on a vastly larger scale. It definitely seems random to us. It definitely seems random to the being running the sim, but he knows just like I "know" that given the required resources and tools the cause-effect chain can be traced all the way through.Either it's deterministic or it isn't as far as I can tell. There's not really an in between there like there is with pseudo random numbers for instance.
If events inside a simulation are deterministic it is so to all observers capable of observing it. I'm not sure of any situation where something is provabley non-deterministic but actually is deterministic, that doesn't really make sense.
Those theories are certainly reasonable, but still don't explain our observations vs claimed reality of deterministic and lack of free will.
That doesn't make sense. Even if you use deterministic RNG to seed an event chain, you can make the event chain non-deterministic, see distributed systems and SGD training optimization. Even if this is a simulation, you cannot know it's deterministic even when you can know it's seeded from a non-deterministic source.It's exactly the same as pseudorandom numbers. There are just vastly more variables on a vastly larger scale. It definitely seems random to us. It definitely seems random to the being running the sim, but he knows just like I "know" that given the required resources and tools the cause-effect chain can traced all the way through.
But our theoretical child doesn't care about that. He just knows universe 72649164437 created life complex enough to think about itself and be creative enough to flesh out an entire living breathing world his friends can explore after their homework is done.
And maybe his parents are discussing whether or not they live in a sim on their favorite forum.
You are saying you can make the event chain non-deterministic, but if everything in the universe is deterministic then when the sim is run is deterministic and all the atoms in the universe are exactly where they were always going to be in order to get your "non-deterministic" run.That doesn't make sense. Even if you use deterministic RNG to seed an event chain, you can make the event chain non-deterministic, see distributed systems and SGD training optimization.
I do not follow this logic. Not even close. Can you explain it like I'm five?Even if this is a simulation, you cannot know it's deterministic even when you can know it's seeded from a non-deterministic source.
What you're posing is basically a multiverse where only a single sliver can ever actually happen, which again, doesn't make sense. That'd be akin to a very long, poorly written book. It's nonsensical.You are saying you can make the event chain non-deterministic, but if everything in the universe is deterministic then when the sim is run is deterministic and all the atoms in the universe are exactly where they were always going to be in order to get your "non-deterministic" run.
Your claim that you can know the (presumably simulated) universe is deterministic when we can, today, provably make a non-deterministic results from deterministic seeds, doesn't make sense.I do not follow this logic. Not even close. Can you explain it like I'm five?
I don't think I am proposing that at all. Maybe I am and just don't know it, but you haven't demonstrated that to me in a way I can understand.What you're posing is basically a multiverse where only a single sliver can ever actually happen, which again, doesn't make sense. That'd be akin to a very long, poorly written book. It's nonsensical.
You keep saying we can provably make non-deterministic results but when I counter with the claim that everything could be deterministic including the exact millisecond the seed was created in the exact conditions where it was created you, to me, are just hand-waving that away.Your claim that you can know the (presumably simulated) universe is deterministic when we can, today, provably make a non-deterministic results from deterministic seeds, doesn't make sense.
Well, we all share your perception (and ardent wish) that we actually are free to decide what we want.Not entirely untrue, but there's a difference between acting on external stimuli and making a choice. I can't choose how my reflexes behave if I touch something very hot, but I can choose whether or not to touch it. The reflex is a biochemical event I have very little to no control over, but the decision most definitely is. The chain reaction that reaches my brain when I smell something isn't in my control, but choosing to get close enough to something to smell it is.
Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other, but I feel like you're working backwards. It appears to me that you're looking at the current day, time, event, and tracking back every previous event to an origin source, and saying 'I can trace back every preceding event, and therefore our universe is deterministic'. What I'm saying, is that there's an infinite possible set of events that could lead to today, as it currently is, and there's an infinite number of possible alternate todays that could exist, and finally an infinite number of future events that could precede today, all of which is non-deterministic.I don't think I am proposing that at all. Maybe I am and just don't know it, but you haven't demonstrated that to me in a way I can understand.
Quantum physics is the quintessential non-determinate system we interact with and are aware of. If you're claiming that quantum mechanics is deterministic, you're going to make some impressive papers if you can prove it. If you want to claim that the basis of quantum mechanics is deterministic and therefore everything after it, including what we perceive to be non-deterministic, is actually deterministic, it may as well just be a religion. It's ignoring what's otherwise proven in our reality, and claiming something outside our reality based in faith and belief with zero proof.You keep saying we can provably make non-deterministic results but when I counter with the claim that everything could be deterministic including the exact millisecond the seed was created in the exact conditions where it was created you, to me, are just hand-waving that away.
That's the very definition of non-deterministic based on a known set of seeds, even deterministic seeds. You cannot reproduce the initial seed (or initial seed is irrelevant due to how the algorithm is defined) therefore the result cannot be determined. See back to free will, and the conditions that create an individual.Even if we capture the exact deterministic seeds and feed them to the same system over and over the conditions the system is operating on can never be recaptured, at least not by us. The temperature in the server room might be different by a fraction of a degree. Each and every transistor in the system is certain to be a different temperature than the last run causing some to flip faster than last time and some slower, causing certain threads to execute in a different order.
That's an interesting paradox, how do you define an example of a choice made that's independent of anything potentially deterministic. How about whether to say a word based on someone else flipping a coin? You have no control over the sequence of events that determines the result, only action on the result. There's no benefit, nor consequence to either event, so no biochemical benefit nor consequence for doing so. Equally, you can choose the opposite, to say a word on the opposite of the agreed upon coin flip, equally free of benefit or consequence. By definition a meaningless action, who an individual is free to choose which path to take, despite a potentially deterministic sequence leading toward it.Well, we all share your perception (and ardent wish) that we actually are free to decide what we want.
But our perception of free will is very far from definitive proof that it works the way we wish. The real question being asked is what processes are going on in our brains that lead to us making choices that we attribute to free will. If our brains are just biochemical machines then it becomes hard to see why the processes aren't deterministic - both for reflexes and for our perceived free will choosings.
It seems to me that true (i.e. non-deterministic) free will needs to pull in some non-biochemical (perhaps even non-physical) process into the mix. At this point, there seems to be no evidence of any such process. I will be interested in hearing what you think the possibilities are.
Even if there were an infinite number of way to arrive at today that doesn't disprove the idea that we got here deterministically. Maybe we did or maybe we didn't.Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other, but I feel like you're working backwards. It appears to me that you're looking at the current day, time, event, and tracking back every previous event to an origin source, and saying 'I can trace back every preceding event, and therefore our universe is deterministic'. What I'm saying, is that there's an infinite possible set of events that could lead to today, as it currently is, and there's an infinite number of possible alternate todays that could exist, and finally an infinite number of future events that could precede today, all of which is non-deterministic.
I don't understand quantum physics enough to prove it is deterministic. Are you saying people have proven it is non-deterministic in a way that if we had 2 identical universes that evolved the exact same way and then ran the exact same test in the exact same place at the exact same time we would end up with 2 different outcomes? That seems unlikely to me as we don't have access to multiple universes just like ours at the moment in order to test it.Quantum physics is the quintessential non-determinate system we interact with and are aware of. If you're claiming that quantum mechanics is deterministic, you're going to make some impressive papers if you can prove it. If you want to claim that the basis of quantum mechanics is deterministic and therefore everything after it, including what we perceive to be non-deterministic, is actually deterministic, it may as well just be a religion. It's ignoring what's otherwise proven in our reality, and claiming something outside our reality based in faith and belief with zero proof.
And that's my whole point here, that just because we are unable to determine what will happen doesn't mean that it is impossible to determine what would happen given infinite knowledge beforehand. We are unable to determine what will happen because we are unable to observe everything that goes into that result.That's the very definition of non-deterministic based on a known set of seeds, even deterministic seeds. You cannot reproduce the initial seed (or initial seed is irrelevant due to how the algorithm is defined) therefore the result cannot be determined. See back to free will, and the conditions that create an individual.