Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 04:27pm PT
|
Yaqui,
the sequences computers generate pass random number tests. And upon restart the computer does not produce the same set of random numbers. Computers are not statistically that regular enough time wise to enter the clock cycle at exactly the same place -- hence random.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 05:06pm PT
|
Dingus:
Please define (mathematically) "random sequence". My understanding, roughly speaking, is that a sequence of numbers is random if there is not a shorter algorithm than the sequence itself for producing it. By this definition computers do not "produce" random numbers since they use algorithms. There is another interesting question: can hackers determine these algorithms and reproduce the sequence? This is much harder to answer, as we've recently seen.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 14, 2017 - 05:58pm PT
|
I'm up in Yosemite so have lost track of this thread for a while and several things seem obvious - from a distance.
When you are fused to a mechanical model, that's all you will see. In fact, that's all you CAN see or understand. When asking for a reason to believe otherwise, you will accept nothing but a mechanical explanation that will describe something other than a mechanical process. Naturally you won't find one, and will end up where you stated: all and everything is mechanical, determined output? We are zombies, who only think we are (fill in the blank).
The only conceivable non-mechanical option from this perspective is magic, though magic in this regard is simply ascribing mechanical causal outputs to an unquantifiable magical agent. You are still looking at the whole consciousness process in terms of physical causation (what else is there, right?), as mechanical output.
Then all the silly ranting that if you only understood this or that mechanical process with all of its nuances and subtleties, then you too would understand the utter genius of (fill in the blank).
The most biter pill to swallow is that there is any exception (exceptionalism) to mechanical causation. This tanks the hegemony of Type A mechanistic belief systems and anyone suggesting same is attacked as a buffoon. Here we have the dark side of scientism, which is as ugly as alcoholism when the smarty pants goes off on a dry drunk.
Next is conflating sentience with various clumsy computer analogies, harking back to arcane behavioralism, where the whole shebang in viewed in terms of inputs and outputs. Except this time we mix in a few algorhythms.
If you simply observe your own creative process, you will see the confluence of awareness and mechanical brain output, the consequent feedback loops vectoring into a dynamic process. There is plenty of mechanical things happening here, but wait, there's more as well. That "more" is the blind spot of Type A physicalists, all else being magic.
More later.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 06:01pm PT
|
Yanqui,
Dingus:
Please define (mathematically) "random sequence".
Will definiting random sequence help this discussion? Is this a joke? If I could define a random sequence it would not be random. They are probably a bunch of short and simple answers to satisfy simple minds but I am of the nature to want to measure as achieving randomness is more complicated than just the utterance of some defining words:
They are at least 8 tests for random sequences including several by Don Knuth. These tests are measuring devices for the likely hood of a sequence being random.
http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~garrett/students/reu/pRNGs.pdf
On Algorithms: they do not describe/define how exactly the machine carries out the task.
In terms of minds I am suggesting the use of random processes to subvert deterministic action.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 07:08pm PT
|
Dingus, you should take the time to read that paper you referenced. It looks like it was written by a college student as a special project, but it's not bad. It begins with a nice attempt to look at the defintion of random sequence and, as the author points out on the second page:
Certainly, any deterministic method of creating sequences of numbers (a formula where the input completely determines the output) will not create random numbers [Garrett 212]
Just afterwords the author (a college student) says: The best source of random numbers seems to be radioactive materials, generated by hooking a computer up to a Geiger counter. While these sources are interesting in their own right, and the sequences they generate can be analyzed by the tests we'll discuss later, pseudo-random number generators (pRNG's), deterministic formulas to create sequences that look random, are good enough for most applications if used carefully and have more interesting mathematical properties
Most likely a geiger counter cannot be hacked, but a psuedorandom generator can. Please think carefully about the source you posted, then we can discuss this more.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 07:53pm PT
|
Yanqui,
It looks like it was written by a college student as a special project, but it's not bad.
Liotoes? And who the F are you to say it is not bad?
you do not seem to understand the statistical variance of machine process dependence in generating random numbers from an algorithm. Maybe we can talk more once you learn the effects of machine dependence and predictability in their clock cycle.
I do not care what Garrett says about algorithms for random numbers since the algorithm is only part of the process of generating computer generated random numbers. Do they pass the test?
It seems you know very little about generating random numbers?
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 07:57pm PT
|
And who the F are you to say it is not bad?
Somebody who actually looked it over, which is more than I can say for you.
If you don't care what the article says, why did you post it?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 07:59pm PT
|
Yanqui,
misquote me you SOB.
I specifically said what I thought of Garrett's statement. How is your reading comprehension?
Specifically the tests of randomness are far more meaningful than what Garrett said. You might ask yourself why do we have the tests for random quality rather someone's utterances to determine the quality of randomness. Did you read the article?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 08:05pm PT
|
Ha, why do you think? Because arrogant certainty has nothing to do with being right. Though I bet that's hard to understand.
If you're having trouble understanding it someone here can help.
I recall reading some time ago that meteorological and atmospheric fluctuations have been used to obtain "random" sequences. Difficult subject to pin down. When I occasionally need random numbers generated for a math graphics program I just use the random command and accept the output. Things that I do are not important.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 08:34pm PT
|
Ed,
you ask: what is anti-energy Dingus?
Likely for another version of something from nothing anti energy would consume the energy form we know for it ability to do work but without any change in entropy. When the two forms meet, all of energy quanta and all of the anti energy quanta would vanish for equal amounts of quanta. If they did not have the same amount of quanta some of the one with more quanta would remain at a locale.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 08:45pm PT
|
misquote me you SOB.
I specifically said what I thought of Garrett's statement. How is your reading comprehension?
I have no idea what you're talking about. The quote I gave was from the article you referenced:
http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~garrett/students/reu/pRNGs.pdf (line 18, page 3).
Anyways, just in case you didn't know, people who work with random numbers (not just me) generally make a distinction between random sequences and psuedorandom sequences (e.g the first line in Wiki article about this says: " A pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), also known as a deterministic random bit generator (DRBG), is an algorithm for generating a sequence of numbers whose properties approximate the properties of sequences of random numbers. The PRNG-generated sequence is not truly random, because it is completely determined by a relatively small set of initial values, called the PRNG's seed (which may include truly random values)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator.
If you got different ideas, even though I don't really get it, like, whatever, dude. Even more I don't get this misquoting SOB bullsh#t. But if you got the need, whatever.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 08:59pm PT
|
arrogant certainty has nothing to do with being right
Perhaps not in your own case, but there are also people whose arrogant certainty is based upon being right.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 09:16pm PT
|
Yanqui,
you say,
If you don't care what the article says,
Get this clear: I did not in any fashion say I don't care what the article says. So how did you conclude the conditional, if you don't care what the articles says as valid about my thoughts regarding it? Or is this statement just your form of rhetorical digressing?
Yes, misquote me you SOB with a false implication. BTW a false implication leads to no conclusion for a statement that is logically valid for the evidence.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 09:25pm PT
|
Yanqui,
you say: [just lip service]
The PRNG-generated sequence is not truly random, because it is completely determined by a relatively small set of initial values, called the PRNG's seed (which may include truly random values)"
But can anyone determine given a PRNG sequence that it was computer generated as opposed to Geiger counter generated sequence? I suspect not.
just in case you didn't know,
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 14, 2017 - 10:02pm PT
|
Perhaps not in your own case, but there are also people whose arrogant certainty is based upon being right.
OMG they may be right or they may be wrong that's why they need luck. Really fantastic how these arguments degenerate into the ridiculous. It's exhausting really. Do you really think any theory or argument with regard to how the universe began/functions from that beginning is locked in certainty? That our understanding of mind is certain? Come on.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 14, 2017 - 10:28pm PT
|
That our understanding of mind is certain? Come on.
--
Anytime you hear people prattling on about objective functioning they are not even talking about mind, per se, anymore than talk about an offensive line is talk about a football TEAM. But you can't blame people for sticking to what they can get hold of with their sense organs and pull a measurement and start tinkering with numbers. To many, that is "knowing." Everything else is imagined or magic.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 15, 2017 - 06:19am PT
|
sycorax made a joke!
But can anyone determine given a PRNG sequence that it was computer generated as opposed to Geiger counter generated sequence? I suspect not.
Particularly because of the need for secure computer systems, there has been a tremendous amount of work on this problem in recent decades. I am a professional mathematician and have a layperson's interest but you would be better off consulting someone who is an expert in the extensive body of knowledge that has been produced. It seems to me if you give that "anyone" enough time (several hundred million years?) and enough access to the generation of numbers by the program, the answer is "yes". On the other hand, if you qualify the question with "for all practical purposes", it seems to me, that carefully framed, the answer to your question is "nobody knows". Apparently some sequences can be shown to be as difficult to solve as integer factorization, which is assumed to be difficult. It is my understand that the algorithms that produce difficult sequences are generally inefficient, but, like I said, consult an expert if you really want to know.
Here is what Wiki says:
A PRNG suitable for cryptographic applications is called a cryptographically secure PRNG (CSPRNG). A requirement for a CSPRNG is that an adversary not knowing the seed has only negligible advantage in distinguishing the generator's output sequence from a random sequence. In other words, while a PRNG is only required to pass certain statistical tests, a CSPRNG must pass all statistical tests that are restricted to polynomial time in the size of the seed. Though a proof of this property is beyond the current state of the art of computational complexity theory, strong evidence may be provided by reducing the CSPRNG to a problem that is assumed to be hard, such as integer factorization. In general, years of review may be required before an algorithm can be certified as a CSPRNG.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 15, 2017 - 07:05am PT
|
MH2: Why would a person with arrogant certainty need good luck?
The notion of certainty always implies arrogance of some sort. I see nothing predictable (although I imagine that the mathematicians here might demure). This observation might equally apply to logic, too. All certainties appear to be axioms (but for one). Everything else is a contrivance. This is not to say that heuristics aren't handy, it’s just that they are approximations, and in all instances, those “slight misses” are misses by miles.
All knowing could be looked at as expressions, in order to avoid reified representations.
yanqui: sycorax made a joke!
Next time I hope it will be a literary one. Wit is such a rare occurrence.
(Hey, is it getting a little warm in here to anyone else? Could someone check the thermostat?)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 15, 2017 - 07:16am PT
|
Guys, please! We're trying to decide if there's an unhackable program. This is big stuff! Wit be damned!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 15, 2017 - 07:21am PT
|
There is no such thing as an unhackable program ever for a mere mortal.
God can never ever be hacked.
Otherwise, you have will have to be God.
But we ..... are only Dog on his leash ......
Largo said earlier;
When you are fused to a mechanical model, that's all you will see. In fact, that's all you CAN see or understand.
When asking for a reason to believe otherwise, you will accept nothing but a mechanical explanation that will describe something other than a mechanical process.
Naturally, you won't find one, and will end up where you stated: all and everything is mechanical, determined output? We are zombies, who only think we are (fill in the blank).
This is completely true and the massive mistakes that the gross materialists fall into.
It's called the deep well of ignorance and the source of their scientism ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!