The human mind and random numbers

andrewblog said:

Well, by reading here I have learned something more about these random data "generators". If my interpretation is right, they work by physical randomness, in other words the events.

Click to expand...

These generators are not purely quantum random but the random events in these generators are "local" at the atomic level mainly from the random thermal movements of electrons tunneling across the junction. Any possible change in the events requires energy. What theory of energy transmission from far distant humans could account for any change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

andrewblog said:

Well, by reading here I have learned something more about these random data "generators". If my interpretation is right, they work by physical randomness, in other words the events.

Click to expand...

Yep I read that too, after NSAspook kindly posted it. It sounds like the randomness is coming from the noise source, but if you read further down that page;

"... The 16Mbps raw random bit stream is processed with a proprietary “Randomness Corrector” which is a highly efficient mixing function. The Randomness Corrector corrects the statistical properties of the raw bits and outputs a bit stream with a maximum defect of <10ppm. The Corrector outputs one bit for each input bit so that the actual entropy is unchanged at H>0.999 per bit. The output bits from the Corrector are passed in non-overlapping 16-bit blocks into an X-Or section that outputs only one bit for each input block of 16 bits. ..."

So the output stream is largely dependent on the computer correction algorithm (and its current internal state). This is what I was referring to earlier.

I've done similar things in physical seeded RNGs, and it's quite acceptable as a way to get ONE data stream of a high quality.

But if you were to run two of these in parallel (like in the group test) the microprocessors will be out of sync as to their internal state, because their xtals run at different frequencies. And the internal state of the micro's correction algorithm affects the output data!

So for the group test to be valid you need to sync every micro down to the exact state (sync them to the same program instruction) then the data can be correlated.

Otherwise (as I said earlier) the group test would be MUCH better just using the direct output of the analog comparator after the noise source. i think the guys relying on these tests don't have much knowlege of the internal workings of a seeded RNG and really don't understand the issues... Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Mr RB said:

But if you were to run two of these in parallel (like in the group test) the microprocessors will be out of sync as to their internal state, because their xtals run at different frequencies. And the internal state of the micro's correction algorithm affects the output data!

So for the group test to be valid you need to sync every micro down to the exact state (sync them to the same program instruction) then the data can be correlated.

Otherwise (as I said earlier) the group test would be MUCH better just using the direct output of the analog comparator after the noise source. i think the guys relying on these tests don't have much knowlege of the internal workings of a seeded RNG and really don't understand the issues... Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Would it be better, maybe if there was really a change of ever seeing a real result it would. Supernatural beliefs cloaked in the cloth of pseudo-science, just my opinion.