Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagaidh
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There was a certain finite automata professor at W&M that could have used your elegantly direct explanation of pseudorandom in computing versus true randomness, rahmani.
In the physical realm, are there any grander (read: pie-in-the-sky) theories that the very concept of randomness is a fallacy? I.e., given the proper resources and computational power, could humanity construct a model that deconstructs an event that appears random? For example, could the model tell you that a flipped coin is going to land head-side-up if all physical conditions are known? If humanity had this capability, could we model all interactions that led up the flipping of the coin back to the beginning of space time?
Hmm. I think I read "The Last Question" too recently ago.
If any of you mentions Chaos Theory in any reply to this post, I spirit you back to 1993 so that you may once again thrill at Jurassic Park in theatres. Just remember that at the same time, Kris Kros will be very popular, the national NASCAR craze will be exploding all around you and Tim Allen will have a hit TV show... so... you know... careful.
|
No, you can't construct a system to behave randomly, because in order to create it, you must know the inputs.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is the fundamental theory behind quantum mechanics, by nature of our limited senses and their attachment to our brains (See:
Epistemology).
We can never fully understand the processes that govern subatomic particles, because of how they react to light, i.e. photons which then react with our eyes. Our understanding of location and frequency breaks down exponentially the smaller the particles are, and they appear to behave randomly. And also, by measuring them, we are affecting their behavior.
However, for us humans there is one method to get truly random numbers, in the sense of quantum mechanics. We can attach a radioactive material to a sensor, which then counts the time between nuclear particle decay. However, the numbers would be random, their measurements of central tendency (mean, median, mode) would change over time, as there were fewer and fewer nuclear particles to produce said phenomena.