Re: true random number generator

From: Gary Shannon (gary_at_fiziwig.com)
Date: 04/12/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 22:50:41 GMT

"Scott Wilber" <swilber@comscire.com> wrote in message
news:1fe3b4d6.0404111328.2da1354e@posting.google.com...
> "Gary Shannon" <gary@fiziwig.com> wrote in message
news:<04ce9039da13a4cf1922f5ea4690da75@news.teranews.com>...
> > "Scott Wilber" <swilber@comscire.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fe3b4d6.0404101613.6c60e470@posting.google.com...
> > > "Gary Shannon" <gary@fiziwig.com> wrote in message
> > news:<f0795e492168107a7f9fbfc2c214ebf2@news.teranews.com>...
> > > > "Scott Wilber" <swilber@comscire.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1fe3b4d6.0404092043.4b98331f@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote in message
> > news:<FM6dnWmWMJMvd-7dRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
> > > > > > Statistical thermodynamics works even using determininstic,

<snip>

>
> Again, the conclusion is that only quantum mechanical events are
> "truly" random and that all classical events are ultimately,
> theoretically predictable if quantum effects are (theoretically)
> excluded.

Granted, the most popular _interpretation_ of QM supposes that true
randomness exists, but in spite of it's pervasive popularity this is only an
unproven, and indeed, usupported hypothesis. In fact, Bohm's formulation of
QM makes all the same predictions, is a perfect fit the experiemtnal data,
and does NOT claim that any such thing as "true" randomness exists.

"Bohm's theory is the only serious proposal around just now that is fully
deterministic." ... "Moreover, and this point is important, it is free of
any of the metaphysical perplexities associated with QM superposition."

-- David Z. Albert in _Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics_ Scientific
American, May, 1994

So the assumption that QM events are random is pure conjecture and is
without any experimental support inasmuch as every experiment that is used
to bolster that interpretation also supports Bohm's deterministic
interpretation. In other words, to believe that QM events are random
requires that you take it on faith that they are random. Taking something
as fundamental as that on faith seems pretty risky to me.

--gary