A mathmatical argument for god.

Silvio Micali was born in Palermo, Italy, on October 13, 1954. He received his Laurea in Mathematics from the University of Rome in 1978, and his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982. In 1983, he joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor Micali has been developing the complexity-theoretic foundations of cryptography, pseudo-random generation, proof-systems, and zero-knowledge protocols. He is the co-recipient of the 1993 Gödel prize.

I guess if you want to call advanced pseudo-random number generation "truly" random then what you say is "true".. but it is still psuedo-random.
 
The number of radioactive decays in a certain time interval follows a Normal distribution. Numbers generated this way satify all known tests of randomness, and can therefore be said to be truly random numbers.
 
The number of radioactive decays in a certain time interval follows a Normal distribution
Proof that bad ideas can lead to teaching something new.
 
You can also look at a graph generated by chaos theory and say that it satisfys our tests for randomness, but in reality it is not random. There is a hidden variable to that graph in chaos theory that gerates the whole chaotic graph. A basic logical equation that is quite simple but developes into complex behavior. Quantum Physics and even radioactive decay could both have "hidden variables" that acount for the seeming disregard of physical law. This is a very poppular theory because it sits well in everyones stumache. So I think you can see why because something appears random it is not random, so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number... Something close to that at least. Then you can say "truly random".
 
Originally posted by Cybermorphic
so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number... Something close to that at least. Then you can say "truly random".
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you prove a system is random? All we can do is look at the data and see if it obeys any pattern we know. You can not mathmatically prove that something will generate random numbers, because then it wouldn't be random.

But regardless, there is still the other major flaw in your argument. You have no reasoning for God to be the first cause.
 
Cybermorphic:

<i>You can also look at a graph generated by chaos theory and say that it satisfys our tests for randomness, but in reality it is not random.</i>

Yes. I know about all that, and I agree that deterministic chaos is not random. But some things are, nevertheless, random and not just chaotic. For example, radioactive decay.

<i>There is a hidden variable to that graph in chaos theory that gerates the whole chaotic graph.</i>

No, it's not because of any hidden variable. It is due to sensitivity to initial conditions.

<i>Quantum Physics and even radioactive decay could both have "hidden variables" that acount for the seeming disregard of physical law.</i>

Do you dispute the results of Bell's theory and the well-known Aspect experiment which together prove that quantum theory cannot have hidden variables?

If so, please explain what was wrong with the Aspect experiment and the Bell inequalities.

<i>This is a very poppular theory because it sits well in everyones stumache.</i>

It's also wrong.

<i>So I think you can see why because something appears random it is not random, so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number...</i>

I've already explained that radioactive decay satisfies all tests of randomness.
 
spookz:

The reasoning goes like this:

1. Assume that radioactive decay is random, for the sake of argument.
2. Calculate the expected statistical distribution of counts based on that assumption. The distribution you come up with is called the Poisson distribution.
3. Get a real radioactive source and perform an experiment to see if the observed counts match your predictions.
4. When this is done, it is found the actual count distribution matches the distribution we predicted on the basis of the randomness assumption.
5. Therefore, we conclude that radioactive decay really is random.
 
If you use the radio or the television as a seed for creating psuedo random numbers tests of the sort you mentioned can lead you to believe they are truly random. You tune the TV to CNN and the images and sounds that come through are given digital values which are then used in a psuedo random algorith to come up with the a sequence of numbers that for all intents and purposes are random. They are random because someone would have to know what seed you were using to generate the psuedo random numbers. Using the TV or Radio to generate these numbers gets even better because when you change the station a completely different seed is being used so the numbers become harder and harder to link together from the psuedo random algorithm. So these numberse can be tested for randomness but are they? No! The TV shows that generated these number are a very ordered and reasoned thing CNN is not a random event it is planned and orchestrated, and your decision to watch CNN and use it as a seed for psuedo random numbers is not random either, you like CNN and you had good reason to use it.
If you want to prove something is random you have to be able to show the math involved in the random action which is impossible so randomness is impossible.
 
Cybermorphic,

Your CNN example is interesting.

Suppose we look at just one pixel on the screen at regular intervals, and use, say, its red saturation value (between 0 and 255) to generate "random" numbers. Are these numbers truly random?

You would clearly argue that they are not. The image on CNN at any time is determined by human beings. Therefore, the red value of pizel number 65342 at any time depends on previous decisions that human beings have made about what will be on the screen at any time.

But, if you were given the output of pixel number 65342 over the period of, say, 10 minutes, with samples taken every 10 seconds from CNN, could you find a pattern? Perhaps you could. Perhaps CNN would be mostly showing a news reader over that time, and all the red values were showing the colour of his suit over virtually the whole time.

What if you took samples over 24 hours? Would you be able to pick a pattern?

Also, going back to the newsreader, if you were given a list of numbers such as 132, 133, 132, 134, 135, 132, 132, 132, 140, ... would you ever be able to say "Ah, yes, sounds like the 6pm news bulletin on CNN!" I don't think so.

The thing is: it depends on how you choose to define "random". You seem to want to define "random" as equivalent to "uncaused by anything". If that is your definition, few things will ever be random to you, because most things have some kind of cause. CNN is caused, so nothing derived from it is random, as far as you are concerned.

In my opinion, a much better definition of "random" is "unpredictable". The red value of pixel 65342 on CNN over any reasonable length of time is unpredictable, <b>even if it is ultimately caused by something</b>. If I knew the programming in detail for CNN for today, I could, in principle, predict that the red saturation level of pixel 65342 at 5 pm would be between 130 and 160, or something. But, in fact, I would have to go to a great deal of trouble to predict that. For all intents and purposes, it is a random number (except over short times).

When it comes to radioactive decays, as I mentioned before, there is <b>nothing</b> you can do to tell me how many counts a radioactive source will emit between 5 pm and 6 pm, at least beyond a certain accuracy limited by statistics.

Both CNN and radioactive decay are random.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top