[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[Michael Gogins]

You're still missing the point.

The randomness in computer programs is NOT real randomness -- that's why the algorithms are called "PSEUDO-random number generators." This is universally accepted. The randomness in quantum mechanics is most definitely real randomness, however. This also is universally accepted.

If physical theory were based on pseudo-randomness, then if you had the seed to the universal pseudo-random number generator, you would be able to signal faster than light, since you would be able to predict the state (after collapse of the wavefunction) of nonlocal correlations better than chance; perhaps perfectly, even. You would have the "key" but according to quantum mechanics, there simply is no key.

I'm sorry, but this is truly fundamental. What's at stake here for you?

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: rob at robmyers.org
>Sent: Feb 21, 2006 11:15 AM
>To: eu-gene at generative.net
>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23
>
>Quoting Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com>:
>
>> I repeat, until a better theory comes along, we must go with QM's 
>> claim of infinite true randomness and the consequent implication that 
>> physical reality is not computable.
>
>I do accept that QM is the currently accepted model of small-scale 
>reality. I'm
>not sure that QM can tell us anything about the brain, though: I've been
>unconvinced of this since Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".
>
>There are computational models of "intelligent" behaviour that rely on
>randomness to avoid the problems of brute force computation, such as
>Hofstadter's Copycat family of programs.
>
>- Rob.
>
>-- 
>'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am I to disagree?'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene