From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Fri Jul 14 2000 - 02:23:07 MDT
A further question was raised off list about the ShapeChanger `randomiser',
and I think I might have to creep away in silent shame.
>I usually try to avoid strong language, but the phrase "total
>bullshit" comes to mind. Deterministic is deterministic. It's a
>computer. Everything inside the box is deterministic. It doesn't
>matter how complex their random-number algorithm is; unless they
>actually have a radioactive isotope in there, it's deterministic. They
>could accept user input - PGP wants you to move the mouse around before
>it generates a random key - and then they would have user-influenced
>numbers.
I take it what's being said here is this: even if the sloppiness of Windows
makes the sampled data *unpredictable* to a human, nonetheless they occur
in a deterministic sequence that is set in ineluctable motion from the
moment the seed enters the algorithm. This would be good enough for a
precognition experiment, say, but not for one of mental *influence*. Unless
psychokinesis is directly modifying the electronic structure or
flow-processes of the machine (and maybe this is their model of how it
allegedly works?), switching bits from ones to zeroes, etc, this process
really just is NOT random in the sense needed to allow the device to
register anomalous biasing inputs.
If I hear any more promising in rebuttal from Dr Haarland I'll pass it along.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:56 MST