>"It is a 7 foot tall, 104 pound, dice-eating monste

>>54423257
something something IG shooting phase

>>54423257
Is random the new Dakka ?

>>54423257
Why not just run a RNG on a computer?

>random.org
>Literally based on random weather patterns.
>Not random enough.
Bet someone threw 1d six times and got pissed at not seeing each number come up once.

>>54423689

>random patterns
>patterns aren't random

wut

>>54423257
I only know enough to know that randomness is hard to do on a computer and I respect this man's endeavour.
Plus the sound is nice.

>>54423537
Because enough people complained that it wasn't actually random.

>>54423257
Id be curious to see how flat the distribution is after 1.3 million rolls.

>>54423916
Nothing is "Actually Random" if you put it like that. If you drop a die in the exact same conditions twice, with no degree of error at any point, you'll get the same goddamn result.

>>54423974

What about quantom flux?

>>54423974
Yes, but many things are untestably non-random due to the branching factors. A shuffled deck of cards, for example, has a layout that is theoretically associated with its pre-shuffled state, but at that point both the pre and post-shuffle states are so unique that for all practical purposes it is random. Were you to use shuffled cards as an RNG for any process, the sheer number of permutations would make it practical, as any physical process in which the non-randomess of the deck was relevant would have to be conducted in a space larger than the observable universe.

>>54424011
I don't know enough about that subject to know if my statement applies to it.

>>54424036
That's what my post meant, that nothing is truly random, but that practically it's good enough to be used for RNG, and thus complaining that something random enough for practical use isn't as random as you want is a fool's errand.

>>54423974
>>54424011
>>54424067
certain aspects of quantum physics, like nuclear decay, are truely random (as far as modern science knows)

>>54424100
Even by the standards of modern science they arnt truly so. Much like my deck of cards example, they are theoretically tied to some sort of force which determines their state, however the function of their existence is far removed from that by a vast array of balanced confounding factors which create the appearance of randomness. This is probable because the states of such particles CAN be manipulated, and as such there exists a possibility that their seemingly random state of flux is the result of the sum of naturally occurring manipulations. Its Plato's Allegory of The Cave, basically.

>>54424168
quantum physics is not my field of expertise, but i dont think you are correct.

there are no observed confounding factors associated with radioactive decay. If you have two undistinguishable radioactive atoms, one could decay right now and one could take a billion years to decay and there would be no way tell

it is theoretically possible that causal factors exist and that we just can't observe them yet, but no proof (and as far as I know hint) of them has been found

>>54424293
Radioactive decay is a product of unstable binding energy in the atomic nuclei, which is a product of various factors.

>>54424067
>nothing is truly random
what is photons.

>>54424347
so if I hand you two radioactive atoms will you be able to predict which one decays first?

>>54424621
No. Mostly because the factors which result in minute differences in that binding energy are not fully understood. I could no more predict it than you could predict where the first drop of a rainstorm will land. However, that does not mean it is not deterministic. The problem is simply too large.

>>54424100
So we just need to invent nuclear-powered dice?

>>54424011

May not be random at all. We honestly don't know and that's as close to truly random as we can get.

There's a philosophy that says we can never actually prove something is random, we can only not have proven it isn't yet.

>>54425019
https://www.quora.com/How-does-determinism-explain-the-randomness-of-radioactive-decay
>"From any observer’s point of view, radioactivity is a truly stochastic process and isn’t deterministic"
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-radioactive-decay-is-not-random
>"So, there’s alack of consensus as to interpretations, and, in particular, a lack of consensus as to whether nature is characterized by true randomness at the quantum level; or, instead, we’re just ignorant as to all the processes governing quantum behavior such as nuclear decay."
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63811/is-the-universe-fundamentally-deterministic
>"Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics is given by another "evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse. This is the source of indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics, and is a mechanism that is still not well understood at a fundamental level"

It is as of yet unknown whether the universe is truly deterministic.

>>54425174
Its as of yet unproven, but we do observe determinism at nearly ever observable level. The minutiae of radioactive decay aside.

>>54425192
We can only observe a small fraction of the universe though and our understanding of even that fraction is limited.

I too would prefer to live in a deterministic universe, but to assume this is one by ignoring whatever doesn't fit in our theory yet is just callous.