On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:42:44AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If we > > > > > > take the usual (mathematical) meaning of computation, then I can point > > > to a potential counter-example: beta-decay. Recording the arrival > > > times of electrons from beta decay using a clock and electron detector > > > gives a time series that to our best knowledge is random and hence > > > uncomputable. It is an undeniable physical process that is not a > > > computation. > > > > > > > I think you're right although Bruno would disagree, he has said from the > > point of view of somebody who could observe the entire multiverse (a > point > > of view that can not exist) everything is deterministic. However what > can't > > be denied is there are only 2 possibilities: > > > > > > 1) That event DID have a cause and thus is computable (it may be a very > > long computation but it is finite). > > > > 2) That event did NOT have a cause and thus was random and not > computable. > > > > One of those two must be true for everything but I don't see how that > > second possibility could have much relevance if you're interested in the > > study of intelligent behavior. > > > > I happen to think that random sources will prove to be rather > important to intelligent behaviour, or rather creative behaviour, If creative processes are anything like genetic algorithms, which are based on selecting and random permutations to explore large combinatorial spaces, I think there is a strong argument to be made that randomness is important to creative behavior. Are you of the opinion that fundamental randomness, rather than pseudorandomness is important? Cryptographically secure random number generators are pseudorandom number generators (deterministic algorithms with an internal state) and are designed to be indistinguishable from truly (fundamentally) random number generators in time less than O(exp(state))--it takes exponential time to decide if the output is from a pseudorandom number generator or a fundamentally random source. If t is possible to make a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator then I think this means that a creative processes that runs in sub-exponential time, should demonstrate creativity whether it uses a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators or true random number generators. Otherwise, the failure to demonstrate creativity in one case but not the other could be used to differentiate cryptographically secure random number generators from truly random sources in sub exponential time. I recall you had done some experiments on this in the past, and thought that you might appreciate some possibly relevant theoretical ideas concerning this question. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
