"Random" is a really interesting concept because it's intuitive yet hard to define. It's really a definition by exclusion, that is if you can't describe something in any way then it's random by default. But how do you know you just haven't found the way to define it yet?
This is somewhat related to the idea of complexity. So if you have a sequence of "random" numbers, how do you know they're random? Take a look at a Mandelbrot Set and you wouldn't guess it's not that complex.
I really like the idea of Kolomogorv complexity [1], which is to say that the complexity of an object (including a sequence of numbers) is defined by the shortest program that can produce that result. So a sequence of number generated by a PRNG isn't complex because an infinite sequence of such numbers can be reduced to the (finite) size of the program and initial seed.
There are various random number generators that use quantum effects to create random numbers. One interesting implication of this is that it ends the debate about whether quantum effects can affect the "classical" or "macro" world.
This is somewhat related to the idea of complexity. So if you have a sequence of "random" numbers, how do you know they're random? Take a look at a Mandelbrot Set and you wouldn't guess it's not that complex.
I really like the idea of Kolomogorv complexity [1], which is to say that the complexity of an object (including a sequence of numbers) is defined by the shortest program that can produce that result. So a sequence of number generated by a PRNG isn't complex because an infinite sequence of such numbers can be reduced to the (finite) size of the program and initial seed.
There are various random number generators that use quantum effects to create random numbers. One interesting implication of this is that it ends the debate about whether quantum effects can affect the "classical" or "macro" world.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity