[eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?

[aslemeur]

I agree

why and when do we chose to use random ?
to create variety, to avoid to chose ? (to fill a space-time ?)
but this random exists inside some preset 'personnal/subjective' rules
This is in these personnal/subjective rules that I am interested (with
computer or any other creation technics)
and how they show something about our own dreams/subconscious

random without strong choses/rules doesn't mean anything
most of the times 'random art' is boring to me because it doesn't express
anything about human
it is more technical than sensitive
most of the time anyone could do the same (having the same level of
technical knowledge)
for example :
http://imagesavant.com/
fascinating but not art ?

what are we dreaming of  ?

http://aslemeur.free.fr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Harrison" <pfh at logarithmic.net>
To: "Michael Gogins" <gogins at pipeline.com>; "generative art"
<eu-gene at generative.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Re: Generative or not?


> On 5/10/06, Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com> wrote:
> > Quantum randomness is not a fact, it's part of a theory we use to
explain what appear to be random phenomena. So in your remark, if I take
"quantum randomness" to refer to the theory itself (than which we have no
better), the theory POSTULATES true randomness. If I take "quantum
randomness" to refer to the phenomena themselves, your remark cannot really
be evaluated as it stands; either the phenomena are satisfied by the theory,
or they are not. If they are, then we must assume that the phenomena do
reflect a reality that is truly random. Theory, in physics, is what we do
know as best as we CAN know. If they are not, then we have falsified quantum
mechanics and we either have found a better theory, or we have proved that
we simply do not understand what is going on. If we don't understand what's
going on, anything we say about it is, by definition, meaningless. If we
have found a better theory, it could as easily be a slightly different (but
still truly random) distributio!
> n, or it could be some pseudo-random process. I suppose this last
eventuality is what you were getting at?....
> >
>
> I'm saying there's no way we could ever distinguish between true
> randomness and sufficiently good pseudo-randomness (the requirements
> for which are quite modest [1]) in quantum physics. Therefore we
> should not postulate theories that distinguish between these two
> possibilites.
>
> What I think this means is that we should not attach great
> significance to true randomness. eg we should not use it to explain
> consciousness, or claim that art that uses it is ineffably better than
> art that uses discrete and repeatable pseudo-randomness.
>
> --
> Dr. Paul Harrison
>
> [1] As Dave pointed out, pseudo-random number generators are usually
> very simple. Even cryptographically secure pseudo-random number
> generators are quite simple (if you're worried about the quality of
> your randomness, just use SHA or MD5...).
>
> http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/
> pfh at logarithmic.net
> jabber pfh at jabber.org.au
> icq 298231643
>
> --
> '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
>
>