Path: cactus.org!milano!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think. + com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!ai.mit.edu!elwin From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Are there truly random phenomena? Keywords: Perception, Cognition Consciousness Message-ID: <17514@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: 13 Aug 91 14:55:24 GMT References: <1494@cameron.egr.duke.edu> <1991Aug04.135708.6689@elevia.UUCP> + <1991Aug9.191052.27053@tfs.com> <618@tymix.Tymnet.COM> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Lines: 43 In article <618@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, gregk@opus.Tymnet.COM (Greg Kennedy) writes: |> In article <1991Aug9.191052.27053@tfs.com> kudzu@ts2.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) writes: |> > |> >In my experience, "random" means a lack of perceived structure in, say, |> >a data stream. An encrypted text may appear random, but it (to the |> >knowlegable parties) is clearly non-random. |> > |> >Randomness and Chaos (a trendier term, that) are self-referential |> >statements about the perception of an observer using a particular |> >notational system, in the context of a particular world view, etc. |> > |> >-- |> > Michael Sierchio kudzu@tfs.COM |> |> |> The best of the arguments I have heard boil down to the fact that |> you must have two asyncronous events to compare to each other to |> get a difference that is truely random. If you believe in the |> big bang theory, that eveything started from a singularity, then |> a truely asyncronous event cannot exist. This is because everything |> would be a product of the expansion of the universe, the way the |> molecules joined, collided, and moved are all predetermined from |> that one moment we perceive as the beginning. This is also the |> base argument for the lack of free will. |> |> Greg Kennedy |> Quantum Mechanics (and its children quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, etc) are based on the assumption that all phenomena have some randomness. There are theories called hidden variable theories that postulate that the "randomness" we see is only the predictable behavior of deeper level structures of which we are ignorant. Unfortunately, the quantum theories, which assume true randomness, have been spectacularly successful in predicting results, in some cases to 12 or more decimal places (certain electron energy levels). Meanwhile, nobody has come up with a working hidden variable theory despite the fact that such notables as Dirac and Einstein devoted decades to the problem. Please show me a working theory of subatomic particles that doesn't *assume* randomness before making broad statements about predetermination and the "perception" theory of randomness. - Lee