On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
