On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
> > random oracle is available?
> I would have thought so.
What about heuristics?  When a question is to difficult to solve ideally,
we fall back to easier or simpler strategies.  In the end it might just be
a raw vote between levels of firing activity in neurons considering the
alternatives.  This has nothing to do with randomness, and can be every bit
as fast/efficient as a random oracle.

> >
> > Note that NO machine can ever distinguish a truly random sequence
> > with some sequence which can be generated by machine more complex
> > than themselves.
> >
> That is true. But complex machines are expensive to run. Real random
> oracles, if available, are so much more convenient for evolution to
> use that to try to evolve sufficient complexity to achieve
> cryptographic strength in a pseudo random number generator.
If we have access to such good random number generators in our brain, then
why are people so bad at choosing random numbers?  There would be no reason
to publish books full of random numbers if people had anything approaching
a statistically sound random number generator in their heads.

Try and randomly choose 100 numbers between 1 and 10, and I bet you will
find your results will be highly biased, and will fail most
any statistical test for randomness.

This article seems to confirm my point:


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to