From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 01:21:37 MDT
Theory:
Computers, such as we know them, cannot generate true random numbers.
Computer "random numbers" are in fact pseudo-random. A random number
"seed" (a hidden variable) cycles through N different values, for some
large value N. Even "cryptographically strong" random numbers follow the
same system, the only difference being that N is hideously large.
A random number sequence is obtained by permuting the seed, and
returning f(seed) for some function f whose range is (in general)
smaller than N.
With sufficient analysis, it is possible to examine a sequence of
pseudo-random numbers and determine the pattern - to predict the next
one. For instance, the C function rand() could be completely predicted
if you studied a sequence of 2^32 such numbers.
_true_ random numbers have no such pattern. They are truly random. They
are completely unpredictable, no matter how many of them we study. Or so
we believe.
Of course, should it turn out that the perceived randomness of, for
example, sub-atomic decay, were in fact pseudo-random, then it would
follow logically that we _must_ be in a computer simulation. Or so it
seems to me.
Ramonsky.
Louis Newstrom wrote:
>From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
>
>>*But* both Nick Bostrom and Robert Freitas have made some very
>>interesting arguments regarding the probability that we *are*
>>in a simulation.
>>
>
>Do you have any pointers or quotes. (Or a thread title I can check in the
>archives?)
>
>So many people seem to say "you couldn't tell", I'd like to hear some
>arguments from people who think you could tell.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:02 MST