On Feb 11, 7:32 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> From a purely mathematical viewpoint, there is no way to show that a > finite string of symbols is truly random. All experimental results are > finite - hence my "simplistic" comment. Yeah, but information theoretical randomness isn't quite the same thing as (meta)physical randomness. The latter means lack of sufficient causality. That can be argued in a non-information-theoretical, non-algorithmic way. For instance, it could be argued that Occam's razor weighs against undetectable hidden variables. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.