> On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:31 PM, Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote: > > > > On 08/04/2017 04:40 PM, \0xDynamite wrote: > >>>> Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, >>>> force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same >>>> result? >>> >>> Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these >>> variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an >>> unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the >>> path the coin takes, etc. >> >> Yes, but those parameters can be expressed with a single vector >> encoding force and direction. > > Given the number of variables involved, it is impractical for an > adversary to measure those variables, and vanishingly improbable for the > coin-tosser to control them well enough to (consciously or otherwise) > predict or control the outcome. So the practical criteria for "random" > are met. > >> The POINT is the number of states of a single 64-bit word, for >> example, is nearly the number of atoms in the known universe. > > True that - but in mathematics, people deal with numbers larger than > anything likely to be observed in the gross dimensions of Nature - > excluding combinatorial dimensions, i.e. the number of possible > arrangements of grains of sand on the Earth's beaches, which I am sure > exceeds the diameter of the observable universe measured in millimeters. > > Lucky for cryptographers, they get to deal in combinatorial systems > almost exclusively. > >>> Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their >>> inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are >>> not. >> >> Right, but this is analogous to SEEDING your starting variable -- you >> only have 1.8E19th choices, LOL. Practically speaking, double that >> and you're golden. >> >> After than you just have to communicate your seed value (somehow), >> like the least significant bit of each pixel in a random image >> uploaded to the web. > > Ideally key material would be communicated physically, under conditions > designed to exclude eavesdropping or later exposure of the key to > hostile parties. > > Using a large stream of random bits as a unique key (called a one time > pad) provides absolute security against cryptanalysis, provided the key > is not stolen. >
Also provided you aren't so stupid to re-use your one time pads, of course ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project > A hybrid method where the random bits are "inflated" to a larger bit > stream for use as a key for messages longer than the random key can > work. But as noted earlier, using a hash function to expand a short key > yields no more entropy; an adversary who knows or guesses what hash > function was used, needs only "brute force" the original short key to > recover the whole ciphertext. > >>>> I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe >>>> must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear. >>> >>> This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and >>> Chaos is ideal for creating life. >> >> Ah, that's only the ecosystem of the Earth. Science, to my knowledge >> has not expanded this balance to include the heavens. > > Exobiology is a thing. In the early days it was a "science without a > subject matter to study" but that has changed. A long while back, amino > acids were discovered in interstellar dust clouds, indicated by spectral > absorption lines in starlight shining through them. Closer to home, > comets have been found to contain a wide range of biochemicals. For > reasons I still don't quite understand, people used to talk about > meteorites from Mars hitting the Earth, and some speculated that life > may have hitched a ride here on them. Now this: According to some > measurements, what looks like fragments of tissue and even possible > micro-artifacts containing biological materials are being swept out of > space by the Earth on a truly massive scale: > > http://www.panspermia.org/balloon2.htm > >>> Almost as if somebody set that up on >>> purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, >>> some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct >>> universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few >>> have conditions supporting the development of life. >> >> The confusion here is in the word "universe". The word already >> encodes an idea of WHAT IS. Namely, a three dimensional void with a >> continuous single vector of time. But see, that order is already >> presumptive. (This is why I say "in MY cosmology").. > > I lost count of how many dimensions string theory is up to now. Maybe > 19? As I said, math is my weakest subject. > > Dark matter, which I long considered a modern equivalent of the 19th > century's Luminiferous Ether, now appears to be a thing; its structure > has been mapped and space behaves "as if" dark matter was responsible > for the distribution of galaxies made of 'regular' matter. So there we > have empirical evidence of a 'universe next door' that interacts with > ours exclusively through gravity. > > So why not dozens, millions or quadrillions of "universes", each with > its own Big Bang and distinct physical laws, coexisting with our own in > a larger context that contains them all and could be called "the real > universe"? > > If so, that would explain why our space time continuum appears to be > designed to create life, without the necessity for a guiding > intelligence of some kind: In this scenario our life-generating cosmos > is not special in any way, except that we happen to be inside it. No > evidence supports this multiple-cosmos model; by definition none can. > But it has become an article of faith among the best educated Atheists; > their religion can't get by without it. > >>> But if so, there >>> must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and >>> the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and >>> error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" >>> context, etc. ad infinitum. >>> >>> Verily, 'tis a mindfucker. >> >> LOLz, funny, but there are answers. Keep probing... > > Maybe there are. Maybe in some sense I know some of those answers - I > have had some very unusual experiences as results from intensive > practice of mystical techniques. But alas: The physical brain can not > encode and retain more than a tiny fragment of that information, and > language can convey even less. The verdict of mystical philosophies and > their associated training programs is unanimous: The ground state of > reality can not be described or explained, you have to go and see for > yourself. > > :o) > > >