On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 4/27/2017 4:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > Why would you suppose it easier to distinguish creativity from > non-creativity than random from psuedo-random? If I recall correctly, the hypothesis Russell was testing was "without true randomness, creativity is not possible". How he measured or defined creativity, I am not sure. I think he may have been running an evolutionary simulation. Jason <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- 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.
