Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

If we can not generate a random series... how are we to recognize one ?

pervy uke... 

Pseudo-randomness is used principally because it is quick and easy to generate on a computer, which traditionally had no high quality source of natural randomness available without additional hardware. However, there are some excellent sources of randomness available, and these are now routinely used: eg modern Intel CPUs have a source of natural randomness built into them.

One high quality source of randomness is background radio noise. A good way to use this is to do analog to digital conversion of the voltage from a broadband radio receiver and then to take the least significant bit.

The Intel hardware I mentioned uses another source of randomness which is temperature. Again, the least significant bit is used.

In the Intel chips, the high quality source of natural randomness is only used to seed a pseudo-random number generator, but if you choose to take only one random sample for each time you seed the random number generator, you are effectively using the raw source of true randomness directly rather than relying on pseudorandomness.

Note that both tiny fluctuations in radio signals and tiny fluctuations in temperature readings are themselves the result of the superposition of quantum level randomness, so it could be absolutely impossible to predict.

Yes, the individual samples from typical pseudorandom number generators are computationally cheap. If you want to use a lot of them, that is an advantage compared to using a natural source of randomness directly.

Page 8 of this Intel document is about "true random number generators" and draws attention to this issue! It also explains the practically important point that by seeding the random number generator at intervals, you get both high performance and high security (because the sequence of numbers between two reseeding events is too short to be cracked, and the reseeding probably makes past information useless).

Well I’d think the issue has been resolved. True randomness exists when using the predictive approach.

The proof lies in Opti and Elroch continuing discussion given their past history. as if nothing ever happened. This could not have been predicted, not in a million years ! Has to be truly random by definition. 

Randomness can and should be looked at through all sizes, and types of lenses. 

If a painter is inspired to paint on his canvass a random painting, we enjoy it and accept it as such.

But what was the catalyst that pushed him to paint? Why did he accept the challenge in the first place?

Passing by something curious perhaps, that would be enough for most of us.. And if said 'curiosity' was not supposed to be there in the first place, but was 'accidental' then we still don't have randomness.

Do we need to re-look at what spontaneous really means, because I'm not so sure I do anymore.

Have you ever asked yourself, where the universe came from? Or why everything exists instead of just nothing? So, what would you say to the question: why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

That is just good ole fashioned human curiosity right there. Everybody has thought about that @eryxc 

We can't say what we really think about that here. But did you know that the universe has a perimeter? You might ask yourself what is on the other side of it? : )

if u look at that eye u can almost see what theyre looking at. u gotta zoom in ultraclose.

There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being

OK I’ll bite. Why must there have been a cause?

2nd. What if it was the universe itself that willed it’s own existence?

and 3rd. Hard to fathom but perhaps is been here for all time and will continue as such. 

and last perhaps it is being created as we speak, always renewing, just as the cycles of Life and consciousness.

It seems accepted that all matter and energy are the same thing, just in different form.

I wonder why it’s hard to accept everything is affected by everything else. The idea all is one- interconnected, not random nor determined. Original events happen independently of each other. Specific causes do not exist. Everything that has happened is an accumulation of all previous events and for the adventurous perhaps including future events.

All rather tedious and boring placing labels and making distinctions of what qualifies as randomness in philosophical discussion. All well on good if solutions for practical problems are sought by science. Knock yourselves out with the maths of predictability.  For abstract contemplation best to avoid the irrelevant. 
 

i say mute him. lol
..thats until he make a sincere effort to understand what you mean by true randomness.

lol. why barbadian from all accents? 

E understand what someone is saying ? 
Never going to happen. Predictable answers going on nigh 10 years. Not when he knows what your statements really mean and can educate us as to the true nature of the Cosmos. Just sit back and become enlightened. You’ll find yourself far less stressed knowing it happened by random chance- had nothing to do with anything whatsoever... except naturally for the physics of it all.  

Presumably due to some vague association with BimShire.

"Presumably due to".. i like your screen name

"Passing by something curious perhaps, that would be enough for most of us.. And if said 'curiosity' was not supposed to be there in the first place, but was 'accidental' then we still don't have randomness."

i love the sound of that ; )

"So the universe is a continuum of statistically determined and locally variable effects and reruns aren't possible. Different every time!"

there are many possibilities, but i like those without the assumption that QM is truly random. if that makes sense (even if you reject MW)

Think about it. If we have no randomness (and, presumably, no free will, since for many people much of the time, free will appears to be random) then we live in a determined universe. - Opti

 You are as confused as Elroch on the topic by placing such demands and ultimatums upon nature. He insists everything is defined and answered with physics. Your explanation makes demand the universe to be predetermined if conditions you set forth are not met.

If the universe does not behave one way - it must behave in the opposite manner?? A common error to assume. 
Recently you said causes are everything. Seems you’re in Erochs camp - something is random if it can’t be predicted by any means. Same ideas as finding and attributing a cause.
I see why you never respond  - My view on is the polar opposite. Causes and predictions all have their place but arenot relevant to the existence of true relevance.   

Perhaps you missed the part where physics determined that there are things that can definitely not be predicted, regardless of how much information you have. These things satisfy the definition of random - that they cannot be predicted.

Here is a mainstream article about the latest and best experiment that can be used to conclude that the real world cannot be deterministic:

Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment (New Scientist)

When it’s all been scraped away much of this comes down to a priori beliefs. When ideas as determinism are tossed in the issue is usually one of fundamental belief -  A Creator exists or not. 
From there follows all the standard retort. If the universe was not created it must be random. Either or convoluted thinking. Once it’s believed all originated by chance we see the same theme for all explanations. 
Origin did not occur by Design nor by Chance. When this fundamental is understood a step will be taken towards understanding order, that true randomness remains as abstract thought and not descriptive of the real world.