▶ Visit brilliant.org/NewMind to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription

@Sajuuk

5 ай бұрын

Q*

0:45 Mind already blown : "Randomness is not a measurable property, but a generative process" We can't infer randomness once the generation has happened.

@dancoroian1

5 ай бұрын

Well...yeah, we can. It describes the process but also the data generated by that process

@dunglvht

5 ай бұрын

Wow, this is such a nice way to put it

@Takyodor2

5 ай бұрын

​@dancoroian1 If I give you two sets of high-entropy bits, can you tell which is random, and which is an encrypted file? (This is a rhetorical question to prove OPs point, the answer is "no")

@erikeriknorman

5 ай бұрын

He's literally wrong, but go off

@michaelpurdon7032

4 ай бұрын

It wasn't until I studied in computer engineering and advanced mathematics that I understood that randomness is essentially a human construct that does not and cannot exist in the way most people perceive it. It's make believe

5:55 i have never in my life seen a person flip a coin like this

@Valdemore4

5 ай бұрын

hahaha... I thought this too

@kindlin

5 ай бұрын

I thought it was just a weird angle or something, but no, he's using his pointer finger to flick, not his thumb. This _is_ weird.

6:40 were these faces animated with AI? (I don't know what I'm asking, of course HD B&W portraits of dudes from the first half of the 19th century don't just exist out there...🤦🏻‍♂️) Anyway, they looked really weird. I really hope this doesn't take off, just be glad for the quality photos and show them as they are, please!

@LateralTwitlerLT

5 ай бұрын

If you want really weird, then take a look at 3:57, and pay attention to his eyes. I agree, it looks unnatural and unbecoming, plus it distracts the viewers attention away from the subject matter at hand.

(standing ovation) ... GREAT JOB! I've spent over 40 years developing models and doing statistical analytics. During that time, two concepts have always fascinated me ... 1) the notion of "randomness" and 2) "nothing". After all this time and in the big picture, I'm convinced that randomness does not and never will exist because of cause and effect. Even entropy is predictable. Isn't that strange? P.S. If I were still teaching, I'd require all my students to watch this video.

@minimal3734

4 ай бұрын

That's right. Randomness is not a fundamental property of existence. Even in quantum mechanics, which is known for its probabilistic character, there is no randomness at the fundamental level. It is true that the squared amplitude of the wave function indicates the probability with which a quantum event may be observed. But the apparent randomness of events that results from this calculation is not a fundamental property of reality, but merely a result of the limited perspective of the observer. In reality, the result of the calculation does not indicate a probability, but describes the landscape of the multiverse, in which the calculated number indicates the distribution of possible worlds with a certain outcome. Randomness does not exist. This is an important insight because it means that there is nothing arbitrary about our existence.

@awsomebot1

4 ай бұрын

​@@minimal3734claiming that many worlds interpretation is 100% correct is uneducated

@UmVtCg

4 ай бұрын

Nothing does not exist either. Even a complete vacuum, if that where possible has virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

@scottterry2606

4 ай бұрын

@@UmVtCg ... yes, exactly. As much as I've thought of it, the most I can say is "nothing isn't"

@dana-pw3us

2 ай бұрын

that's why this video was created - to speed up understanding process

There is so much information in this video I'm going to save it and go over it again. My "back of the envelope" definition of randomness is a sequence or pattern for which we cannot currently develop a process to duplicate it. Implied is the idea that future knowledge may indeed be able to develop a predictive process so patterns considered random today may not be so in the future. But given the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics, at the bottom, there are patterns that can never be reconstructed and thus can be considered truly random. KZread constantly amazes me with the vast depth of its content.

@Lyra0966

3 ай бұрын

Randomness is built in to the mathematics of non-linearity. Chaos theory now suggests that we will never be able to accurately forecast the weather beyond a 4 week period and not at all a week or so beyond that. Butterfly effect etc.

@PlumGurly

2 ай бұрын

That is true randomness. There are also pseudorandom numbers which are good enough. So you can use what little entropy you already have to seed a PRNG. So a really good math formula plus things such as the system timer (determined by when you loaded the software in relation to when you started the computer) and maybe other non-deterministic things in the system may be good enough for most situations.

It's important to note that the primary function of a hardware random number generator is to generate the seed of a cryptographic PRNG. It's not normal to wait for a hardware rng for every random number that is needed.

@forloop7713

5 ай бұрын

Why not wait?

@jittertn

5 ай бұрын

​​@@forloop7713 it's too slow ? The rand circuit for intel x64 clocks at 800 mhz I believe, you have to iterate a certain amount of clocks to make sure you're going to get a value

@lurkingstar

5 ай бұрын

​@@forloop7713 It takes some time (much longer than a single cpu cycle) to generate a true random number. At least for certain architectures, the RNG 'stockpiles' a number of random numbers in a buffer. So if you consume it every cycle, worst that happens is running out and the CPU having to waiting for the next one to be generated and slowing down the program.

@Majromax

5 ай бұрын

@@forloop7713 Cryptographic pseudo-random number generators are very good. Modern generators are well-studied, and an attacker can't distinguish them from truly random output without performing an infeasible amount of computation ("lifetime of the universe" level, usually). However, as the video notes, the output of a PRNG is useless if an attacker knows the original input. Suppose I initialize my sooper seekret system with "the number of seconds elapsed since midnight on the day I turned it on." Well, that's only 86,400 possible values to check! Hence the need for a truly random (high-entropy) _initialization_ of a PRNG, which can come from hardware random number generators.

@andersjjensen

5 ай бұрын

Another commonly used method is to constantly reseed a pseudo random function with the output of the hardware random number generator. This is especially useful in systems that either don't have a hardware random number generator, but instead uses an amalgamation of hardware and software interrupts along with other seemingly random system events, or systems which has a particularly slow RNG. The PRNG on UNIX-like systems (MacOS, Linux, BSD, IBM AIX, etc) is, by specification, repeatable. That is, if you seed it with "5" you'll get the exact same output every time. This can be useful in games for instance. The problem with this, however, is that if you use it for randomness it's easy to test for known sequences. Constantly reseeding it will just royally confuse an attacker who sees a known sequence, and expects to have found the seed.

the expertise that goes into these videos continues to impress me. I am only halfway into my second year of software dev, just getting my first taste of RSA encryption and basic statistical techniques to surpass encryption on text messages. It is super interesting to see how much thought goes into making something unpredictable. Thank you for all these videos!

@erikeriknorman

5 ай бұрын

Lol

Looking forward to my class on statistics next semester, will be a nice change after being done with my calculus classes, always been extremely intrigued by how you can take into account factors to make more accurate assumptions that will statiscally speaking be more often current, than wrong, with a large enough sampe space. Thanks for a great little teaser.

@lynnemagruder276

3 ай бұрын

Egypt

Great video, and I'm glad to see that Shannon was given proper due. I would have liked to seen his ideas further fleshed out in the ideas of Conway's Game of Life, cellular automata, and more so into computational irreducibility as presented by Wolfram. To me, this is the most accurate way to view informational randomness. It allows for finite states that lead to unpredictable outcomes, due to nothing more than iteration and an inability to compute it, intractability. Still, great video!

@stevengill1736

3 ай бұрын

Game of Life, yes!

The casino gaming industry uses chi-squared distribution as a means test for the RNG. Also secure random numbers are a thing in modern SoC such as Snapdragon. The SoC or CPU as most call it contains a hardware root of trust (HROT) that performs a secure random as well as some basic secure transforms. This is completely independent of the CPU or GPU accelerators and the memory they use. The Trusted Operating System (TEE-OS) takes ownership of the TPU once the system starts up. Also another feature is PUF memory used for making unique and immutable ID for each SoC used for encryption processing.

@brendawilliams8062

4 ай бұрын

I’d like to be a firefly on that firewall

@brendawilliams8062

4 ай бұрын

Counting tuna and sharks

The title got me here. Edit: I got here too early and commented before completing the video. After watching the video, I can say the title is spot on. Using quantum probability of photon arriving is hardcore. We came to this from gaming mind you. That really escalated. Great great video. This video touched on security, probability using a fundamental concept. Amazing man

Great context to what I am learning in stat class! Thank you!

Great topic. Whether randomness is an objective property of the world or whether it is the subjective experience of one's limited ability to discern objective order is a fascinating question. How can we tell the difference? How do we find whatever boundary there might be between the two?

@TheScreamingFrog916

5 ай бұрын

Random vs Chaos?

@minimal3734

4 ай бұрын

Randomness is not a fundamental property of existence. Even in quantum mechanics, which is known for its probabilistic character, there is no randomness at the fundamental level. It is true that the squared amplitude of the wave function indicates the probability with which a quantum event may be observed. But the apparent randomness of events that results from this calculation is not a fundamental property of reality, but merely a result of the limited perspective of the observer. In reality, the result of the calculation does not indicate a probability, but describes the landscape of the multiverse, in which the calculated number indicates the distribution of possible worlds with a certain outcome. Randomness does not exist. This is an important insight because it means that there is nothing arbitrary about our existence.

Never even dawned on me that computers use noise patterns as truly random templates or light for that matter, makes sense though. Great production!🙏🏼

Always wondered why the noisy output of a crystal oscillator couldn't be used as a random source. If taken to enough decimal places... The output would surely be random. I never understood how jittery and noisy a standard crystal was until I added an ovenised oscillator and then finally multiple gpsd units to my bench. Or the insanely jittery and always changing output of the bitrate of a processor. I'm sure there's a reason it can't be used, but it's just something I always wondered

a day with a new video from New Mind is a good day

@0neIntangible

5 ай бұрын

Really, what are the odds of that happening?... lol

Great video. Can you talk sometime about the Hurst-exponent for testing randomness? I think it's an interesting topic.

I stopped playing online Scrabble games when, as a long time Scrabble player, playing against a good friend, I could soon tell that the computer generated racks produced letter combinations that real life (picking out of a shaken bag) racks rarely did. And, in fact, my friend and I then engaged in a long conversation about the nature of randomness and whether or not computers could ever generate random patterns without reference to some external non-linear function. I was convinced this was not possible. Not sure if this video suggests I'm wrong, because I'm no mathematician.

Every time I flip a coin, it rolls underneath furniture.

Awesome video as always! But having Rudolph Clausius’ eyes move to stare at me was unexpected and kind of freaked me out. 😂

@dr9205

5 ай бұрын

It's good to have a live feed while recording random events 😂😆

Nothing truly happens randomly; even what appears random is simply a result of our inability to accurately calculate it. Take, for example, playing snooker: when you hit the white ball into a group of colored balls, their final positions may seem random to us because we can't predict exactly where they'll end up. However, if we had all the necessary information, such as the force, angle, and resistance of the table, a math expert could calculate precisely where each ball would go. Therefore, what we perceive as randomness is often just a lack of understanding or information. Everything happens for a reason, even if we can't figure it out yet. Randomness is like a mystery. It seems like things happen by chance, but there's always a cause we might not know. Imagine flipping a coin. It lands on heads or tails, seemingly random. But if you knew the exact force you flipped it with, the angle it spun, and every tiny bump on the coin and surface, a super powerful computer could predict the outcome. We experience randomness because we often don't have all the information. The world is predictable, but our knowledge can be limited.

An important caveat is that information is in the 'model' of the physical world, not the physical world itself. Randomness, as incomplete information, can be fundamental to a 'model', but not fundamental to the physical world. Thinking of it as such would be a demarcation error. There very may well be something equivalent to randomness in the physical world, but it would have a different label, just like entropy in information theory must be noted as different from entropy in physics. The idea of randomness in physics is that there were these preceding paradigms, like atom theory, where behaviours were much less predictable due to incomplete information about what caused the variations within the behaviour of individual atoms. Older models like atom theory underwent scientific revolution as anomalies (falsifications of the hypothesis that atoms were irreducible) formed a concrete necessity for the model of the physical world to be corrected with a new more basic unit of measure, the quanta, which at that point in time was considered irreducible by means of accurate measurement. The problem with this is that continued random behaviour in quanta pretty much suggested that the hypothesis of quanta as an irreducible unit was incorrect, but that the physics was still 'useful', just as the physics of atom theory is useful. Early quantum physicists realized they could bypass the problem by expressing unpredictable values as a range rather than a single constant, and predicting all possible generations that could occur from the 'seeds' of that range. This is strictly different from saying randomness is fundamental to the physical world. It is fundamental to Quantum Mechanics, our current best informational model of the world. But there is a possibility we are not at the end of history, and physics has more revolutions ahead of it as our measure of quanta improves. As Norbert Wiener put it in The Human Use of Human Beings: "In Gibbs' view we have a physical quantity which belongs not to the outside world as such, but to certain sets of possible outside worlds, and therefore answers to certain specific questions which we can ask concerning the outside world. Physics now becomes not the discussion of an outside universe which may be regarded as the total answer to all the questions concerning it, but an account of the answers to much more limited questions. In fact, we are now no longer concerned with the study of all possible outgoing and incoming messages which we may send and receive, but with the theory of much more specific outgoing and incoming messages; and it involves a measurement of the no-longer infinite amount of information that they yield us."

Great video! I don't think that true randomness exists. It can't. The very fact that we can observe persistent macroscopic objects, that can move true time and space (planets, galaxies, animals, rocks...), that do exhibit soe level of order, means that true randomness doesn't exist. If it did, everything would be unimaginable chaos and no persistence would be possible on macroscopic level. The perceived randomness of quantum mechanics can be explained in many ways, that do not require real randomness. For example many worlds interpretation tells us, that all possibilities do actually happen simultaneously, which doesn't leave room for randomness. Also, our inability to measure the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously (for example) comes from the fact, that to do a measurement means to interact with the electron, which will disturb its state, so the information obtained will have uncertainty, which says nothing about the state of the electron itself, without being measured. The quantum uncertainty is a measurement problem, even if it is a principal such and can't be avoided.

Randomness really is an incredible thing. For todays society who have never had to live life with it, many things start getting taken for granted.

Yep, now I understand why my dog tilts his head when I talk to him.

A sensor that can only be activated by a high energy particle, connected to a key generator that constantly changes value based on other connected quantum inputs, would be the most locally random sequence that could possibly be generated. The key is constantly changing, for example, based on something like radioactive decay, and only the high energy particles can "choose" or push the actual digit that gets used, into memory. This is only locally random because "we" can't trace it. The fact that it happens so predictably that we can build this pseudo RNG from it, means that at the heart of it, it is NOT random at all...

@Robert_McGarry_Poems

5 ай бұрын

We would need to tap into energy fluctuations at the level of plank time, to be truly random... But that is not possible, so... Everything that emerges from that randomness is by definition, definable. Meaning, no true randomness exists above quantum foam, or we wouldn't be able to define it clearly. Which is what makes it impossible to measure beyond the Plank boundaries...

love the topic, love your research, and love your presentation here!! one quick note, though: the i ching was based on yarrow sticks, which we now here in our occidental perspective(s) approximate with the toss of a penny (likely due to the alchemical notion of what is of least worth being of greatest significance)…

‧ 0:23: “normal numbers” - how many of these do you know? I aware of just two, the Champernowne and Erdős constants. There's a proof that _almost all_ reals are normal, but it doesn't let you turn the thing around on its head and say “π is normal because probability of otherwise is negligible”) ‧ 5:29: From i.i.d., a random sequence inherits unpredictability - sorry, you've lost me here. ‧ 6:16: “Objective randomness” is completely determined by _your own_ operational definition of “objective.“ ‧ 7:44: **Super, thank you!** Randomness, however it be defined, is immeasurable. Could you please clout that into the heads of the probability class students? ‧ 7:48: The split is a non-split. I believe the lecture would benefit from even a short proof of equivalence of the two, superficially incompatible views on probability. There is no “maths“ or “phys” probability. There's only probability. ‧ 8:20: This is somewhat unconventional. We don't usually associate an _interpretation_ of probability with the _domain of knowledge._ ‧ 9:03: As a physicist for 40+ years, I don't believe in a (the?) “fundamental nature of reality” (FNR). The FNR experiences significant changes every 30 years or so. (My undergrad textbooks are good as the fireplace kindle tho.) Either the reality is prone to such quick changes, or... You see the direction I'm pointing to. It's we, not the _it._ ‧ 9:10: No, no, no, no, no! No mathematical concept is the fundamental part of “existence” - I read “existence=“the real world.” By this bold exclamation, I invite all Platonist mathematicians to Platonise me, slowly and utterly unpleasantly, up to the fundamental nonexistence, or, worse, existence in the Platonic domain, with no space or time, but only truths. Who wants truths for the taking, not for a lifetime struggle with the having of discovering them? ‧ 12:25: Nothing “fatal“ in the K. complexity. It'd just pure maths for ya mates! ‧ Null covers. It's important, as the set of null covers of an infinite non-enumerable set is finite. ‧ 14:22 What happened to the Shor algorithm, the third of the two? ‧ 13:49 Digital signature???????? Oopsie! ‧ 16:46: There is NO difference between pseudo-randomness and chaos. ‧ 17:40: The transistor “thermal” noise is an inherently quantum process. Treating it separately from the following quantum optics sources of randomness is unfounded in the current physics. Here, I fixed thait fer ya! 💖 Nice vid, indeed; I watched it with an ultimate pleasure. Don't take my comments to seriously... But, uhm… .On the second though, I take that back. do. It won't harm you, even if I'm wrong on all points. Peace, mate, no intention to object, just that to complement your presentation!

The number sequence 1,1,1,1,1,1 is exactly as random as any other number sequence. There is no way to prove they weren't chosen randomly.

@girlinagale

5 ай бұрын

How did you know my password!

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

3 ай бұрын

​@@girlinagale You should change it to something more secure, like 1 2 3 4 5.

When randomness was the order of the day, man lived with much fanfare.

Terrifically excellent 👌

2:06 "Epicurus further proposed the idea of inherent randomness that is woven into an atomic fabric that forms existence." So he predicted quantum physics. Nice.

Hey New Mind, how do you make those historic portraits come to life? It looks like some AI processing, and looks pretty random to me!

@irek1394

5 ай бұрын

yeah its AI and it looks really bad I dont see why he would do that

@JetpackAwaaay

5 ай бұрын

It was creepy as fuck when Rudolph Clausius suddenly looked at me at 4:03, I'm not sure that's the vibe he was going for.

@ZER0--

5 ай бұрын

I noticed that. It looks weird n off putting.

@ZER0--

5 ай бұрын

@@JetpackAwaaay Very creepy.

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

3 ай бұрын

It's rather gross and unnecessary.

The only random thing in the Universe is Radio Active Decay of an Isotope. No other thing can be accurately measured. No one can predict when a Radio-active Isotope will emit fundamental particle.

@jamescole3152

5 ай бұрын

LOL. Not so at all. . Even if a simple coin flip was biased to lets say heads, it still would be random. Random with a heads bias. Random does not have to be 50 50 to be random.

Brilliant brings every episode of every KZread video

0:09 Randomness *does not defy intuition* . It defies logic, rationality, presumptions, expectations. Intuitively, I completely get randomness, luck, the unexpected, disorder, irregularity, entropy -- simply because THEY are the basis of nature. I do not want or expect them to be the norm.

Life is a game of chance. When the Universe rolls the dice you better be ready for a 6.

When things started becoming less random, man too started becoming rather orderly.

Note that Asymmetric Cryptography is frequently thought of as a replacement for the older Symmetric Cryptography algorithms. But this is not true, because Asymmetric is many orders of magnitude slower and requires huge key sizes to have equivalent security. So they're only used to facilitate secure key exchange used for the older Symmetric Cryptography.

The most baffling aspect of chaos is the order

YOU have really the best narrating voice and your level of knowledge is super high, thank you again for this best video. i have joined the patreon to show my support and cheer!! keep this up

@erikeriknorman

5 ай бұрын

LOLOLOL

@0biwan77

4 ай бұрын

That’s not live narration.

dig the visuals. good video

great work

Jeekers this is exhausting. Now you are changed. "Information causes change. If it doesn't, then it's not information." -- Claude Shannon

What are the chances that anything can happen by chance? Nothing can happen by chance because chance cannot do anything. I once had a discussion with a professor at Harvard who said to me the universe was created by chance. I pushed him a little bit on this, used a coin to illustrate the problem. I said, “If I have a fifty-cent piece and flip it up in the air, what are the chances that it comes up heads?” He says, “50/50.” I said, “OK, how much influence does chance exert on the flip of the coin?” He said, “What do you mean?” I said: “Well, the way it comes up heads or tails is determined by how much pressure is exerted on it, what the density of the atmosphere is, how many revolutions it takes, and so on, whether you catch it here, or here, or here, and whether after you catch it you turn it over or don’t turn it over. Those are all the variables. How much influence does chance have?” He still didn’t get it. I said: “Well, look. If you’re using the term chance to talk about mathematical possibilities, it’s a perfectly useful term. But when we ascribe to chance a power to do something, we are saying the chance is something. Now, what is it? What is this mysterious X factor that causes the coin to come up tails or heads?” He still looked at me, and I said, “Wait a minute.” I said, “Chance cannot do anything because chance is not anything.” For something to act, it must first what? Be. Chance is not a thing; it’s no thing; it’s nothing. When you say to me that the universe was created by chance, you are saying the same thing as saying the universe was created by nothing, and you’ve taken a perfectly good word to describe mathematical possibilities and now informed it with magical power. Giving it ontological status, giving it power to do something when it is not anything, and that is the principal idea that is used as a substitute for creation. Now, I know there are some who argue that the universe is eternal and always has been here. That’s another question, but the vast majority of critics today who deny the creation of this world by a self-existent, eternal God appeal to some kind of beginning to all of reality that comes from nothing. It’s the rabbit out of the hat-without a hat, without a rabbit, without a magician. It’s worse than magic; it’s pure mythology. R.C. Sproul

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

3 ай бұрын

And then everyone clapped, right? This never happened, and you are full of shit.

Super interesting and really well put together keep it up 👌🏼

We used to try to diminish the randomness in a signal; now we work our asses off to increase it.

Good video ❤

You think maybe the small movements from the accelerometer would be a good random number seed?

Well done!

It can be Beautiful when the Deck is Stacked against You.Nothings carved in stone anyway.Game of the Gods.

Uncertainty is the key to everything. Random, but not really; given large enough "time series" data sets patterns always appear in small pockets. Chaos theory seems counter intuitive but that's just humans 7:35 "quantify" 🤣😂🥰😇

18:46 to me, a cheap and easy way create a truly random number is to pick a bitmap of a photograph of a cloud.

Computation model of Universe Classical computation is 2 dimensional. Where classical computation is a function of space and time. Where we can only compute in 1 and 0. Time is a derivative of 2d computation with iteration. When we parallelise 2d computation it rise to space. Quantum computation is 3 dimensional in potential . Where time and space collapse. Let us model the universe with this idea. the quantum scale is infinite precision computing. The universe is zero precision. Scale is a gradient of precision. Time is a function of delta precision. delta precision in precision gradient is space. From microscopic to macro gravity is a symptoms of relative growth between objects in that scale. We can derive that from the bifurcation map where r 0 to 4 can me map into world scale. Plank scale would be 4 and observable universe is 0. From this assumptions, we derive both zero precision and infinite precision is stateless. Therefore no computation. Therefore, zero and infinite precision is both non temporal and non spacial. Space and all the dynamics are in between these two point. Now, we can model the universe with bifurcation map. Where plank scale would be r value 4. And observable universe would be r value 0. From this we can derive the motion for every subsystem in their relative scale. 13:07

people don't realize how hard it is to generate truly random numbers

Well, what about using a FM radio noise? It sounds pretty random :D. I think this could be reliable source of random number sequences. True, anybody in the world can listen to the same noise. This leaves me wondering whether there would be differences in the noise pattern on differnt frequencies. Also the sampling frequency of the noise would make it different. So is it actually used or has this technique some flaws, like it would be biased based on the Suns activity? Or maybe, if embedded into some device, the signal can be altered by the operation of the device itself and be possibly influenced... I am not sure :D

@donperegrine922

5 ай бұрын

Sounds like a good enough method! I guess the first way I would suspect of hacking it: somebody can just broadcast in the radio frequencies you are listening to, inserting their own signal.

@BangkokZed

5 ай бұрын

Very close to home, in the United Nations Statistics Division we used atmospheric noise to generate random integer sequences for sampling purposes.

@rationalactor

4 ай бұрын

Yes, it's an interesting idea. The flaw in it, however, is that the FM receiver, as designed, must have a finite bandwidth. So even though the incoming cosmic noise may be seriously random, the receiver introduces a correlation between successive outputs. To justify this, imagine a highly tuned receiver with an super-narrow bandwidth. In the frequency domain, this bandwidth has the spectrum of an oscillator, which is likely to just resonate. Not very random! Certain musical instruments work this way, flutes, organ pipes etc Just my 2¢ 😊

I see the number 44 all the time. It can be a watch.. 13:44.. It can be a house number. It can be the timer on my instant pot that I can only see when I get to another room..Anyways 2 days ago, when the night was very bright. I knew it must be around full moon. So next day I googeled "new moon" (never googeled anything about the moon before), to see when that would be.. Well it will be Feb 10th at 00:00:44 here in Esbjerg Denmark.. The odds that it will happen in that second is. 1 : 60x60x24 = Or 1 to 86400. The chance is 100%..The chance that I would look it up that day was 100%.But 0 % the day before.. Seen over a lifetime where I have never thought about it. And will probably never google it again. It all seems "strange". Another "strange thing" is, that if I had lived just a few miles away from here. New moon would have been at a different time..(The world is 510 mill km2. The area where 00:00:44 is real might be 100 km2). Randomness ?.Well I am a bit freaked out about it.

security by obscurity - "You do not know my key therefore it is safe" :P

@user-ec3rm9wr1n

2 ай бұрын

Ugh life 🧬

There are multidimensional space so perfect control only in special domain or regional

Here’s a random fact: Richard Von Mises is the brother of economist Ludwig Von Mises. Ive never heard him mentioned before so kinda cool!

@CliffSedge-nu5fv

3 ай бұрын

That is the opposite of random.

Love that thumbnail.

5:55 What a horrible coin toss!

The game shown at 1:30 is Go, which, like chess or checkers, has no random elements.

@peterj.fallon4327

3 ай бұрын

Nice observation.. was thinking the same exact thing!!

Chaos is just a system we are not capable of understanding.

Now do chaos theory vs Randomness.

This video dropping at this time on this day, now thats random.

Too tiny to grasp, too fast to perceive. -Randomness

The video didn't differentiate between a truly random seed number used in a pseudo random number generator and a sequence of all truly random numbers. Like the German and Japanese WW2 encryption methods that could be broken and were broken. A truly random number can never be broken. That is the definition of a random number. So a sequence of all truly random numbers takes the place of any of the previous encryption methods. And the way to use this unbreakable encryption is pretty simple. So simple a 5 year old child can understand it. Your command center would generate sequence of all truly random numbers, say a billion, and distribute a different set to each general delivered by hand. If any of the sets were stolen that set is just discarded. None of the sets could ever be broken since none of the random numbers are used more than once. A random number can never be broken. Ever.

Believing in true randomness is foolish. That's like believing that you finally found the smallest particle.

These videos are brilliant!

its silly right their are at least 5 fundamental properties from which randomness can rise and probalby everone behaves slightly diffrent.

Big question. I will not name the app, just present my case. The givin is: Randomness is not programmable. Random number generators, do they create the same effect as shuffling and dealing cards.

If you randomly showed up these kinds of videos are 100% normal.

"Time is a statistical phenomenon."

Secure: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

open Q and A if i encrypt a file 1 time and it takes 1hr to crack it dose putting it in 20 sub folders each encrypted take 20hr is there a theatrical un Brut forcible way to lock something

15:53 suddenly crypto

There is only potential from the human perspective. But in totality all things are happening, have happened and will happen all at once simultaneously. Sounds crazy yes. But only when viewed from a limited perspective. First realise thought is not required to think.

This randomly popped up on my feet 😮

Chaos is order yet to be understood (c)

Photonic chip Quantum Random Number Generation is true RNG.

3:59 Your video editor is creepy AF!

@kindlin

5 ай бұрын

Ha, I didn't even notice that weird eye transition thing. It is creepy tho

because there's will in any kind of particles 👀

this is how it behaves not where it comes from, infinite time, iunfinite space, infinite liquidity, this is where this properties come from. and rising core speed.

@ulyssesk7325

5 ай бұрын

like the world drags you to toe flor is how it behaves but what it acuhally is is an insane high eather pressure.

Randomness is not a fundamental property of existence. Even in quantum mechanics, which is known for its probabilistic character, there is no randomness at the fundamental level. It is true that the squared amplitude of the wave function indicates the probability with which a quantum event may be observed. But the apparent randomness of events that results from this calculation is not a fundamental property of reality, but merely a result of the limited perspective of the observer. In reality, the result of the calculation does not indicate a probability, but describes the landscape of the multiverse, in which the calculated number indicates the distribution of possible worlds with a certain outcome. Randomness does not exist. This is an important insight because it means that there is nothing arbitrary about our existence.

Everything happens for a reason except random things. That's an oxymoron

Even quantum physics is governed by laws there is no true randomness in any type of existence the only time you can find two Randomness is in nothingness and nothingness is an impossibility because of information

oh accuhally 6 i forgott particles who rise from an increasing complexity

@ulyssesk7325

5 ай бұрын

but its hardwired to cre speed so maybe jsut 5

@ulyssesk7325

5 ай бұрын

well his is acuhally all physical randomness, programms can fall into an subspalce creating infinity manny "pseudospaces" with infinite manny randomness

Adding those old images into an AI that made them move and look around was super cool. I loved that little tidbit you added in. 10/10

The "Dice Man"

Literally every video that I liked today I was the 615th person to like it. And I’ve watched a lot of videos today.

So which Roulette numbers should i play..?

1:29 that is a game of Go, pure skill, no luck influence.

@TeutonTwin

5 ай бұрын

Yeah. I stopped watching at this point.

When these are used in lotteries the games are crooked.

There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. There's so much yet to learn in science. It's hard for us to comprehend dynamic chaotic systems. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to improve our understanding of the cosmos over time because it would be foolish to think we fully understand these things. Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many more cosmic bodies & structures. We are getting better & better but some things are just so vast it's understandable we don't yet fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to study these things.

Would you say the universe is high or low in entropy? How does that apply to the predictability of the constellations, orbits, eclipses, etc..? Far as what I’ve grown up learning is the universe is high entropy as it gets and yet one of the most predictable things to a fault. The heavens declare the glory of the Creator and the heavens, sky, firmament show his handiwork/workmanship all so blatantly

@kristinabliss

4 ай бұрын

🎉😂

3:50 Pretty unusual to see the Jewish symbol of the Star of David on these instaed of a pentagram.

Cryptography is based on prime numbers, not random number sequences.

Your randomness is not exsit. It just one of all countables.