On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote: > At 2:46 PM -0500 12/10/07, Robert Cummings wrote: > >On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote: > >> True randomization is only really possible in nature. > > > >Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed > >may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that > >initial state was and we couldn't possibly calculate all the > >interactions since, doesn't mean that everything since hasn't been > >happening in accordance with some universal formula and in absence of > >randomness. We know that there appear to be certain laws in physics, > >would they not have applied to that initial state in a non random > >manner? It may just be that due to the hugantic sample space from which > >to draw arbitrary values that we think things are random. > > > >Food for thought :) > > > >Cheers, > >Rob. > > Rob: > > You most certainly have a point there. Our identification, > classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue. > Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around > us and our perception is pretty limited Did you just answer your queue of posts in reverse chronological order? :) Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ........................................................... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
