On Dec 10, 2007 5:56 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:45 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2007 5:39 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:32 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Without order there cannot be randomness. > > > > > > > > But is the reverse true? > > > > [/snip] > > > > > > But disorder isn't necessarily random. > > > > Unless you get into Shannon entropy, but that still doesn't > > disprove your statement. > > Shannon entropy (from what I briefly scanned) is based upon the > presumption of random. As such you can't use it to argue a case for the > existence of true random. Entropy is merely the tendency of an ordered > state to move toward disorder. It also doesn't in any way make an > argument for random. For instance, let's say I order 10 peas into a line > in a straw. I then shoot them all at a target which they more or less > hit and scatter. The peas are now in disorder, but their places of rest > (presuming we're not in outer space ;) would be the logical outcome of > the application of the laws of physics with respect to mass, force, > angle, gravity, etc. They aren't randomly lying on the ground. Although, > one might casually choose their resting locations to derive a > pseudo-random number since it is unlikely one could easily guess the > precise landing location of each pea. actually a couple of guys spent some time to figure that out many years back and applied it to the roulette wheel. they made a small computer you could put in your shoe and trained a bunch of people how to use it. they then sent the people out to various casinos and became millionares. -nathan
