Any noise will appear to contain patterns if patterns are looked for

[rawesomeawesome]

If you listen to empty white noise long enough you might begin to hear voices or sounds in the static. Any program designed to look for repeating patterns or complexity occuring in, what should be, random noise is going to find "something" there, because noise is noise

[rawesomeawesome]

Just because there isn't any input, you can't expect a RGN to produce stable noise at high frequency. Your "impulses" could very well be the processors of your device lagging for milliseconds at a time, desyncing your noise

[rawesomeawesome]

And beyond that, what about a repeating pattern makes it intelligent? By that logic wouldn't any naturally occurring pattern, such as the golden ratio, be equal proof that "math is engineered"?

[avaneev]

It's a program, its result does not depend on how you perform it - you may do the same on a paper, with a pencil. Ratio is a ratio, a mathematical relationship between abstract mathematical entities. Information is a completely different thing.

[rawesomeawesome]

Not that math isn't engineered, by humans in an attempt to understand and calculate the world around us. It is a haphazard numeric representation of reality and not reality itself

[avaneev]

I'm not telling math is a reality itself.

[rawesomeawesome]

Like looking closely at a printed photo and seeing the pixels of the camera's sensor, one might assume the universe was made of red, green and blue stripes. it's a limitation of our math, not a representation of a universe-predating being

[avaneev]

I'm not talking about representation of God either. My conclusion is that mathematics is an art of God.

[rawesomeawesome]

Ok, but what it sounds like you have concluded is that if a tree falls in the woods with none around to hear it, then it only existed to fall because it was being perceived by God/the human mind? Or concluding that math cannot contain set "information" or properties without there being someone to write them or perceive them?

[rawesomeawesome]

It seems a bit of a logical leap, perhaps cognitive bias of the human mind when staring into an abyss such as maths

[avaneev]

Math is usually not thought as something "having information", it is perceived as a set of rules to manipulate information. Information is assumed to be always human-made. But my research conclusively says that math does have embedded human-understandable information.

[avaneev]

Generally, your comments go far beyond what I've discovered and claiming. This work is not about how consciousness works, or ways to "see" something in noise. Extracting information from noise always requires some sort of a filter. Here, the function is itself a generator, but, quite unexpectedly, it does not generate noise...

[TwoD]

Your claim assumes there is a god to begin with, making all findings thereafter biased. What you're seeing is far more likely to be fractals or simpler patterns arising from hardware or implementation limitations. Pseudo random number generators are named such because they are by definition not random and built on patterns that look "random enough" and have a useful distribution of output. Any structure found is indeed there by design, but the designer is you.

[avaneev]

Pseudo-random generators have to pass specific statistical tests. They are pseudo-random, because they require seeding. Of course, I'm the designer of the program, but what the program produces is not defined in the program, it's embedded into math.

[avaneev]

As for mentioning Creator, it's just a conclusion. The overall reasoning is not based on imaginary existence of God, it's the other way round - the finding requires introduction of external source of information as to not meet a dead-end.

[SampsonCrowley]

You're just ignoring your own biases and applying conclusions from fallacy. It's like people who claim that God exists because the "chance" of the world existing is "too unlikely" without design. It's a fallacy. The chance of the world existing the way it does is 100% because it does exist. It exists by the properties of the universe because the properties of the universe are.

You claim being able to observe a pattern from pseudo, key being PSEUDO, random data is proof of a creator but it's not proof of anything; except that your brain as a human in the universe evolved within the constraints of the universe and is wired to find patterns therein, wherever it can. You wouldn't be able to recognize anything, period, if you weren't constantly subconsciously analyzing and attributing combinations of contrast as objects to be recognized.

[avaneev]

@SampsonCrowley Ah, whatever, you are spewing a usual "educated" word mumbo-jumbo. All I'm talking about is that math is likely engineered, with some pre-defined non-random information embedded. The keyword is "non-random", because in realm of PRNG, randomness is strictly defined via a set of state-of-the-art tests. Existence of God is then a byproduct conclusion, questionable of course, and that's why I'm using adverb "probably".

[avaneev]

I'm actually expecting someone to describe function's behavior in other terms, of course in the realm of mathematics, maybe referring to some implicit functions. Everything else is just literacy contest.

[TheUnlocked]

Of course, I'm the designer of the program, but what the program produces is not defined in the program, it's embedded into math.

Creating a simple program that produces interesting patterns isn't particularly novel nor is it evidence of a higher power. The code somewhat resembling that of an actual PRNG program doesn't change anything.

[avaneev]

@TheUnlocked You are simply not involved enough, and the issue is not about your beliefs. What the program does - exhibits complex non-linear behavior while using linear in F2 math - may change a lot of things.