Re: Surviving Einstein.
From: J. Campbell (mango_maniac_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/30/03
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Stream cipher against block cipher"
- Previous message: janeth: "SFS: no way to encrypt bootable partitions/drives?"
- In reply to: Fab: "Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 30 Jun 2003 09:13:36 -0700
fpautot@sseg.de (Fab) wrote in message news:<9a79e5c8.0306270834.2e55ab08@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Cryptographers,
>
> I would like to learn about Cryptography but I already face some deep
> issues in the starting blocks.
>
> It is because Einstein said "God does not play dice".
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) If Einstein is right, how Cryptography can survive?
> 2) Is there any result proving that Einstein is wrong?
> 3) If not, is Cryptography actually based on the fundamental
> assumption that Einstein is wrong?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> Kindest regards.
I just read through this thread. The debate is centered on whether an
event is determinable or not. I think that it is important to
introduce the idea of "computational irreducability" into this debate.
The point of being able to generate "random" numbers isn't really a
question of if the universe is deterministic or not...rather it is one
of whether there is a "shortcut" to determining the outcome of the
universe, or if the only way to get the answer is to let the laws of
physics play out on all the member elements of the universe. For
example, if you want to calculate the coordinates of a particular
proton (or quark, or whatever) in the sun...and if you have *all* the
data that describes a preexisting state of the sun...then...yes...you
can make this prediction. However, making the prediction will require
making calculation that detail *all* the interaction that occur in the
system between the initial and final state...an amount of computation
that is equivilant to letting the system develop on it's own...
Wolfram discusses this a *lot* in his book "a new kind of science",
which has been dismissed as bunk by many who most likely didn't
understand the point he was trying to make. The point, as it pertains
to random numbers and crypotography is this...if to "predict" the next
"random" number in a series requires an irreducible amount of
computation, and if that amount of computation is more than is
technologically feasible, then the output is, for all practical
purposes "random". Systems that meet this requirement abound, and
therefore, cryptography is a valid persuit, even in a deterministic
universe.
Cheers
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Stream cipher against block cipher"
- Previous message: janeth: "SFS: no way to encrypt bootable partitions/drives?"
- In reply to: Fab: "Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
