Re: true random number generator

From: CAFxX (cafxx_at_n-side.it)
Date: 04/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:21:24 +0200

hi, i'm the one that posted the original message.
the original topic has already been deleted from the server, and since i
came home only today i got no way to read the answers you posted. will
someone please repeat what has been said (even by mail).
i do want to thank you for your help, CAFxX. 

--
CAFxXcrossway -> www.cafxx.cjb.net
"Scott Wilber" <swilber@comscire.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1fe3b4d6.0404121211.1026de95@posting.google.com...
> "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
    ... > QM makes all the same predictions, is a perfect fit the experiemtnal data, ... Pseudorandom number generators fit this definition ... A "true" random process is one in which future states cannot be ... and sufficient computational power. ...
    (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)
  • Re: Time
    ... They needed it for predictions and the interpretation of signs. ... All three types existed paralell in the Roman Empire, ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: First: Artificial Intelligence. Next: Physics
    ... >>is your own personal interpretation of the Bible. ... Science makes predictions. ... should your predictions matter more than the other ones? ...
    (sci.physics)