Re: true random number generator

From: Scott Wilber (swilber_at_comscire.com)
Date: 04/12/04 

Date: 12 Apr 2004 13:11:23 -0700

"Gary Shannon" <gary@fiziwig.com> wrote in message news:<6a5a82949da37cd87413c3599ff154be@news.teranews.com>...
> "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

This brings us to the inevitable question: What does "true" random
mean? Certainly, "deterministic" in this context is a much easier
concept to define. In its simplest form, deterministic means that the
next result or state in a sequence of states is fully determined by
the present state. Pseudorandom number generators fit this definition
precisely. The implication of your statement is that QM events are,
at least theoretically, predictable. AFAIK no experimental evidence
of such predictability has ever been reported.

The following hypothesis is presented for discussion:
A "true" random process is one in which future states cannot be
predicted by any physical or computational means beyond purely
statistical expectations. All non-true random processes are
"deterministic" and the next state in such a process is entirely
predictable, given complete information of the present physical state
and sufficient computational power.

Noted that many random number generators are driven by sources that do
not precisely fit the above description. This is perfectly acceptable
because no one has access to their internal processes and states, and
therefore their outputs may be entirely unpredictable for all
practical applications.

scott

Relevant Pages

  • Re: true random number generator
    ... 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. ... >> without any experimental support inasmuch as every experiment that is used>> to bolster that interpretation also supports Bohm's deterministic ... > The following hypothesis is presented for discussion:> A "true" random process is one in which future states cannot be> predicted by any physical or computational means beyond purely> statistical expectations. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
    ... but this proposal simply doesn't fit with how science ... the theory's predictions, they should be able to churn out their raw ... > the GP-B team, their funding agencies, ... explaining how our coordinate system is fixed in space, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Accuracy vs. Relevance
    ... >> theory of GR can make meaningful statements and predictions at all. ... >> coordinates so as to obtain results that fit observations, ... "events") are diffeomorphism invariant is false. ... If you set up a space-time measurement model, ...
    (sci.physics.research)