Hi

Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be impossible;
so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone have the
sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?

Espen

"Espen Amundsen" <espen.amundsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message <news:3fc787b6$1@news.broadpark.no>...

> Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
> understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be impossible;
> so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone have the
> sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?

You only need a little "true randomness" in order to seed a PRNG.
The low bits from, say, some microphone inputs would do nicely.

 URL:http://world.std.com/~cme/html/randomness.html

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!

Espen Amundsen wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
> understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be
> impossible; so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone
> have the sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?

Typically, Linear-Congruential Pseudo-Random Number Generators (LCPRNGs) are 
used.

It's fairly easy to write your own LCPRNG. Pick two fairly large prime 
numbers. For example, 123456791 and 987654323. (Well, I think they're 
prime, anyway. Feel free to check.)

Let there be some seed-value s.

x = s * Prime1
y = x + Prime2
s = y

(Eventually, of course, s comes back around to its original value again, and 
the cycle repeats.)

Typically, you'll want to use the top few bits of s in preference to the 
lower bits.

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Espen Amundsen wrote:

> Hi
>
> Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
> understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be impossible;
> so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone have the
> sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?

You are correct that truly random number generators would be impossible in
a programming language. Most languages will use a mathematical formula to
generate a sequence of numbers. Most will use a linear congruent method.
For example:

	x' = (a*x + c) % m

where x is the previous number in the sequence, x' is the next number in
the sequence, a, c and m are set values. The idea is that if you choose a
and c wisely, the sequence will be the maximum length before repeating.
For example, if x is an 8 bit char then the sequence will repeat after all
256 numbers are use.

-- 
Send e-mail to: darrell at cs dot toronto dot edu
Don't send e-mail to vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Thank you for good answeres. Found some more info about randomness at
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator .



"Darrell Grainger" <darrell@NOMORESPAMcs.utoronto.ca.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0311282034310.2614@drj.pf...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Espen Amundsen wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
> > understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be
impossible;
> > so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone have the
> > sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?
>
> You are correct that truly random number generators would be impossible in
> a programming language. Most languages will use a mathematical formula to
> generate a sequence of numbers. Most will use a linear congruent method.
> For example:
>
> x' = (a*x + c) % m
>
> where x is the previous number in the sequence, x' is the next number in
> the sequence, a, c and m are set values. The idea is that if you choose a
> and c wisely, the sequence will be the maximum length before repeating.
> For example, if x is an 8 bit char then the sequence will repeat after all
> 256 numbers are use.
>
> -- 
> Send e-mail to: darrell at cs dot toronto dot edu
> Don't send e-mail to vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Ok, this is strange. This group at Princeton Uni has placed random
generators that use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise, around the
world. They are constantly generating random numbers and the results are
gathered in.

And around major events, like September 11., the generators seems to
deviate. So the idea is to find out if human consciousness can inflict on
the nature.

Sounds like x-files to me but they have a realy scientific approach:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Maybe a bit off topic but :) (now Im going to think a beer out of the
refrigerator and into my hand).



"Espen Amundsen" <espen.amundsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:3fc787b6$1@news.broadpark.no...
> Hi
>
> Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive never
> understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should be
impossible;
> so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does anyone have the
> sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats done?
>
> Espen
>
>
>

>>>>> "Espen" == Espen Amundsen <espen.amundsen@broadpark.no> writes:

 Espen> Hi Ive ofte used the randomfunction in different languages but Ive
 Espen> never understood how it works. As I see it, truly randomness should
 Espen> be impossible; so I just have to know how the randomfx works. Does
 Espen> anyone have the sourcecode(any language) or can tell me how thats
 Espen> done?

A little bit of the subject, but Intel (and I guess AMD) has a feature on its
PC chip (82802 Firmware Hub), that give a true random numbers. It measures
temperature noise, so it is totally random. Linux kernel can be compiled so,
that random functions use the chip.

 Espen> Espen

-- 
Arto V. Viitanen				                  av@cs.uta.fi
University of Tampere, Department of Computer Sciences
Tampere, Finland				      http://www.cs.uta.fi/~av/

"Espen Amundsen" <espen.amundsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message news:<3fc8fa28$1@news.broadpark.no>...
> Ok, this is strange. This group at Princeton Uni has placed random
> generators that use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise, around the
> world. They are constantly generating random numbers and the results are
> gathered in.
> 
> And around major events, like September 11., the generators seems to
> deviate. So the idea is to find out if human consciousness can inflict on
> the nature.
> 
> Sounds like x-files to me but they have a realy scientific approach:
> http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
> 
> Maybe a bit off topic but :) (now Im going to think a beer out of the
> refrigerator and into my hand).

This topic has generated much argument in the sci.* groups and
elsewhere.

it's interesting enough in itself to merit some attention and i've
nothing wrong in principle to the idea that we humans have material
affects on things in ways we don't yet understand, but remain suitably
skeptical until this really is understood better.

The idea of using 'noise' to drive random number generation in
computers is interesting though.  perhaps philosophers of a
determinist persuasion are bound (heh heh!) to consider this a futile
attempt at generating random numbers, for the numbers are
pre-determinded anyway at a more fundamental level.

Espen Amundsen wrote:

> Ok, this is strange. This group at Princeton Uni has placed random
> generators that use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise, around
> the world. They are constantly generating random numbers and the
> results are gathered in.
> 
> And around major events, like September 11., the generators seems
> to deviate. So the idea is to find out if human consciousness can
> inflict on the nature.

I have long suspected (and not been alone in this) that consciousness
is far more than we realize.  I read a paper a few years back by am
MIT "physicist/philosopher" that speculated consciousness as another
fundimental force (on par with strong, weak, E/M & gravity).  The
idea does explain some bizarre aspects of QM.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:04:08 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote:

>Espen Amundsen wrote:
>
>> Ok, this is strange. This group at Princeton Uni has placed random
>> generators that use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise, around
>> the world. They are constantly generating random numbers and the
>> results are gathered in.
>> 
>> And around major events, like September 11., the generators seems
>> to deviate. So the idea is to find out if human consciousness can
>> inflict on the nature.
>
>I have long suspected (and not been alone in this) that consciousness
>is far more than we realize. 

That would seem a truism, since we don't know what it is ;-)

> I read a paper a few years back by am
>MIT "physicist/philosopher" that speculated consciousness as another
>fundimental force (on par with strong, weak, E/M & gravity).  The
>idea does explain some bizarre aspects of QM.

Sounds interesting. Do you remember his name?

-- 
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net

I think that we often wish to be more than we are. Hence many beleave that
we are created from an almighty God and alot of people beleave in
parapsychology etc.

The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is the same
that we can move things with the force of mind. Im a realist and can only
relate to things empirically.

Ive read alot of papers about this kind of subjects, its interesting, its
amazing, its kind of spooky, but most of it is written by populists who only
care about facts that supports their ideas.

If we look at the global consciousness project at Princeton, they claim to
have data showing that their randomgenerators deviated under the funeral to
Princess Diana. I find this strange because Diana was the English princess
and I dont think there where many people outside of Europe who cared much.
This is again the typical European/American way of thinking: the rest of the
world must think exactely the same way as us(and if they dont, well bomb
them to think the same way). So if there is such a thing as global
consciousness it wouldnt be during that funeral. When you are going to
mesure such a thing its not just to check when the generators deviate, and
then try to relate it to an event. You can always find something.

The only true way to get randomnumbers is from quantum physics, and the
random events around us comes from that randomness. What that randomness is,
is a huge question. But I wouldnt be surprised if there was a kind of
entropy between order and unorder.



"Programmer Dude" <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:3FCF9338.BCC3572@Sonnack.com...
> Espen Amundsen wrote:
>
> > Ok, this is strange. This group at Princeton Uni has placed random
> > generators that use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise, around
> > the world. They are constantly generating random numbers and the
> > results are gathered in.
> >
> > And around major events, like September 11., the generators seems
> > to deviate. So the idea is to find out if human consciousness can
> > inflict on the nature.
>
> I have long suspected (and not been alone in this) that consciousness
> is far more than we realize.  I read a paper a few years back by am
> MIT "physicist/philosopher" that speculated consciousness as another
> fundimental force (on par with strong, weak, E/M & gravity).  The
> idea does explain some bizarre aspects of QM.
>
> -- 
> |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
> |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
> |_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Espen Amundsen wrote:
> 
.... snip RUDELY topposted verbiage ...
> 
> The only true way to get randomnumbers is from quantum physics,
> and the random events around us comes from that randomness. What
> that randomness is, is a huge question. But I wouldnt be surprised
> if there was a kind of entropy between order and unorder.

Don't toppost.  Do snip.

First you have to define random numbers, which is usually done by
specifying several statistical laws to be followed.  Having done
so, the resulting sequence is random, regardless of the generator.

Quantum physics does not define any form of randomness.  However
it does provide emperic formulae for expressing various
probabilities, such as quantum tunnelling, fission, beta decay,
etc.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

Espen Amundsen wrote:
> I think that we often wish to be more than we are. Hence many beleave that
> we are created from an almighty God and alot of people beleave in
> parapsychology etc.
> 
> The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is the same
> that we can move things with the force of mind. Im a realist and can only
> relate to things empirically.
> 
> Ive read alot of papers about this kind of subjects, its interesting, its
> amazing, its kind of spooky, but most of it is written by populists who only
> care about facts that supports their ideas.
> 
> If we look at the global consciousness project at Princeton, they claim to
> have data showing that their randomgenerators deviated under the funeral to
> Princess Diana. I find this strange because Diana was the English princess
> and I dont think there where many people outside of Europe who cared much.
> This is again the typical European/American way of thinking: the rest of the
> world must think exactely the same way as us(and if they dont, well bomb
> them to think the same way). So if there is such a thing as global
> consciousness it wouldnt be during that funeral. When you are going to
> mesure such a thing its not just to check when the generators deviate, and
> then try to relate it to an event. You can always find something.
> 
> The only true way to get randomnumbers is from quantum physics, and the
> random events around us comes from that randomness. What that randomness is,
> is a huge question. But I wouldnt be surprised if there was a kind of
> entropy between order and unorder.

You might be referring to the phenomenon known as "chaos".  This is a 
sort of half-way house between complete order, and complete disorder.

It shows that even deterministic systems can behave in an essentially 
unpredictable way.  Systems with certain types of feedback can show an 
extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, so for example the tiniest 
quantum fluctuation (let alone a butterfly) could influence the outcome 
of such a system.

Perhaps even the thoughts in our minds are subject to chaos through 
electrochemical noise?  The physiology of our brains apparently has a 
strong feedback loop.

But I am a strong believer that it is quantum randomness that influences 
  _us_.  We have no control over physics, physics controls us.  What 
this means is that free will we apparently possess is just randomness 
from physics, not some kind of magical spirit that goes to heaven.

Calum

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FD09CF1.16FB370C@yahoo.com...
> Espen Amundsen wrote:
> >
> ... snip RUDELY topposted verbiage ...
> >
> > The only true way to get randomnumbers is from quantum physics,
> > and the random events around us comes from that randomness. What
> > that randomness is, is a huge question. But I wouldnt be surprised
> > if there was a kind of entropy between order and unorder.
>
> Don't toppost.  Do snip.
>
> First you have to define random numbers, which is usually done by
> specifying several statistical laws to be followed.  Having done
> so, the resulting sequence is random, regardless of the generator.

A good definition of random numbers is a sequence that is not predictable.
If you feed a random number algorithm with random data it will apparently
show a random sequence, but its not. It will follow the sequence of the
algorithm.

>
> Quantum physics does not define any form of randomness.  However
> it does provide emperic formulae for expressing various
> probabilities, such as quantum tunnelling, fission, beta decay,
> etc.
>

In the best vacum we can make on earth(in any vacum) there will exist
fluctations of particles that is not possible to predict. It is also the
same for the placement of electrons around the atomic core(the wave equation
for probability density of the electron distribution). And probably alot
more (superstringstates..).

But if those things are random or not, who can tell? But as long as we cant
predict it, I would say that it is "true randomness".


> -- 
> Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
>    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
>    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!
>

CBFalconer writes:

> First you have to define random numbers, which is usually done by
> specifying several statistical laws to be followed.  Having done
> so, the resulting sequence is random, regardless of the generator.

What are these laws?  I read that as:
<follow laws><generate numbers>.

The only "laws" I know of are after the fact tests to see if a particular
group of numbers might, in fact,  be random.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:12:30 +0100, "Espen Amundsen"
<espen.amundsen@broadpark.no> wrote:

>
>But if those things are random or not, who can tell? But as long as we cant
>predict it, I would say that it is "true randomness".
>
That seems a simple definition, but I've not sure it's adequate. I
can't predict what you're going to have for lunch, but it may not be
random at all :-)

Pragmatically, I agree with Chuck. For a given problem, you must
decide what characteristics of "randomness" are required, then any
method of generation which meets those criteria is OK.

-- 
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net

Alan Balmer wrote:

>> I have long suspected (and not been alone in this) that
>> consciousness is far more than we realize.
> 
> That would seem a truism, since we don't know what it is ;-)

[grin] What makes it less tautological is that I suspect it will
turn out to be more than we *suspect* and *guess*.  Specifically,
I think the "hard AI" people will turn out to be wrong: building
a *mind* is not the same as building a *brain*, because *mind* is
not (I believe) an emergent property of complexity (as some do
believe).

>> I read a paper a few years back by am MIT "physicist/philosopher"
>> that speculated consciousness as another fundimental force (on
>> par with strong, weak, E/M & gravity).  The idea does explain
>> some bizarre aspects of QM.
> 
> Sounds interesting. Do you remember his name?

I think it was David Chalmers (this was after I did a little
poking around the 'net...Chalmers is from UCSB).

Go Ogle for [consciousness "fundamental force"].  That will give
you some interesting links to follow....

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Espen Amundsen wrote:

> The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is
> the same that we can move things with the force of mind.

There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
required for a single mind to move a material object and that
required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
of random noise in the local fabric.

Both may turn out to be absurd; both may turn out to be the Real
Goods,... or any combination inbetween.

> Im a realist and can only relate to things empirically.

Yep.  Time will tell.

> Ive read alot of papers about this kind of subjects, its
> interesting, its amazing, its kind of spooky, but most of it
> is written by populists who only care about facts that
> supports their ideas.

Read some by serious writers who know their subject, and can
communicate some of the wonderful weirdness of quantum reality
and human consciousness (two fields we only begin to understand
and only imperfectly).

> I find this strange because Diana was the English princess
> and I dont think there where many people outside of Europe
> who cared much.

I never cared, but lots of USAians were bananas over her.  There
are STILL parodies and references in the popular media.

> But I wouldnt be surprised if there was a kind of entropy between
> order and unorder.

Eh?  Entropy is the *measure* of disorder in a system.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Calum wrote:

> [Chaos Theory] shows that even deterministic systems can behave in
> an essentially unpredictable way.

[Nit] You need an "apparently" right in front of "deterministic".
Truly deterministic systems are deterministic... by definition.

What chaos theory showed was that, in systems where non linear
equations describe system behaviors, extremely small input
variations--or extremely small in-process perturbations--have
an extraordinary effect on the system (given their size).

> Perhaps even the thoughts in our minds are subject to chaos
> through electrochemical noise?

Or even quantum uncertainty.  Rogar Penrose opposes "hard AI" by
speculating that minds involve uncertainty (which suggests we
could build a mind if we could incorporate that uncertainty in
the system).

> But I am a strong believer that it is quantum randomness that
> influences _us_.  We have no control over physics, physics
> controls us.  What this means is that free will we apparently
> possess is just randomness from physics, not some kind of
> magical spirit that goes to heaven.

Those concepts are not necessarily exclusive of each other.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:50:07 -0600, Programmer Dude
<Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote:

>Alan Balmer wrote:
>
>>> I have long suspected (and not been alone in this) that
>>> consciousness is far more than we realize.
>> 
>> That would seem a truism, since we don't know what it is ;-)
>
>[grin] What makes it less tautological is that I suspect it will
>turn out to be more than we *suspect* and *guess*.  Specifically,
>I think the "hard AI" people will turn out to be wrong: building
>a *mind* is not the same as building a *brain*, because *mind* is
>not (I believe) an emergent property of complexity (as some do
>believe).
>
>>> I read a paper a few years back by am MIT "physicist/philosopher"
>>> that speculated consciousness as another fundimental force (on
>>> par with strong, weak, E/M & gravity).  The idea does explain
>>> some bizarre aspects of QM.
>> 
>> Sounds interesting. Do you remember his name?
>
>I think it was David Chalmers (this was after I did a little
>poking around the 'net...Chalmers is from UCSB).
>
>Go Ogle for [consciousness "fundamental force"].  That will give
>you some interesting links to follow....

Even better when I add Chalmers to the search terms. Seems he caused a
bit of controversy in some religious groups, as well :-)

-- 
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net

"Programmer Dude" <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
news:3FD0D5FD.76C2CD88@Sonnack.com...
> Espen Amundsen wrote:
>
> > The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is
> > the same that we can move things with the force of mind.
>
> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
> required for a single mind to move a material object and that
> required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
> of random noise in the local fabric.

True, but the idea is the same.

>
> Both may turn out to be absurd; both may turn out to be the Real
> Goods,... or any combination inbetween.
>
> > Im a realist and can only relate to things empirically.
>
> Yep.  Time will tell.
empiri = what you know by experience

>
> > Ive read alot of papers about this kind of subjects, its
> > interesting, its amazing, its kind of spooky, but most of it
> > is written by populists who only care about facts that
> > supports their ideas.
>
> Read some by serious writers who know their subject, and can
> communicate some of the wonderful weirdness of quantum reality
> and human consciousness (two fields we only begin to understand
> and only imperfectly).

Could you give me some names/titles?

>
> > I find this strange because Diana was the English princess
> > and I dont think there where many people outside of Europe
> > who cared much.
>
> I never cared, but lots of USAians were bananas over her.  There
> are STILL parodies and references in the popular media.

I bet 3 billion Chinese and Indians didnt care + the rest of Asia and Africa
(and probably south America)

>
> > But I wouldnt be surprised if there was a kind of entropy between
> > order and unorder.
>
> Eh?  Entropy is the *measure* of disorder in a system.

Entropy is a measure for the energy difference between two materials.

>
> -- 
> |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
> |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
> |_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Espen Amundsen wrote:

>>> The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators
>>> is the same that we can move things with the force of mind.
>>
>> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
>> required for a single mind to move a material object and that
>> required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
>> of random noise in the local fabric.
> 
> True, but the idea is the same.

True.  Like the idea of pushing a beachball and pushing a mountain
being the same.  Implementation is another matter, though.  (-:


>>> Im a realist and can only relate to things empirically.
>>
>> Yep.  Time will tell.
>
> empiri = what you know by experience

And through testing, yes.  I was agreeing.  What's your point?


>> Read some by serious writers who know their subject, and can
>> communicate some of the wonderful weirdness of quantum reality
>> and human consciousness (two fields we only begin to understand
>> and only imperfectly).
> 
> Could you give me some names/titles?

THE TAO OF PHYSICS is a good one.  Just about anything by Feynman
(Richard P.) is very accessible (I particularly enjoyed QED). And
THE SEARCH FOR SCHRODINGER'S CAT (John Gribbin) is excellent.

There's more, but that should get you started.


>>> ...Diana was the English princess...
>>
>> I never cared, but lots of USAians were bananas over her.
> 
> I bet 3 billion Chinese and Indians didnt care + the rest of Asia
> and Africa (and probably south America)

I can't speak for them, but I do know this: never underestimate
the power of the global media.  McLuhan's "Global Village" is
pretty much at hand.  It wouldn't *surprise* me if people around
the globe weren't more aware of Princess D than one might expect.

>>> But I wouldnt be surprised if there was a kind of entropy
>>> between order and unorder.
>>
>> Eh?  Entropy is the *measure* of disorder in a system.
> 
> Entropy is a measure for the energy difference between two
> materials.

Nope.  It's the amount of uncertainty (and/or information) in a
data set (casually speaking: the amount of disorder in a system).
In systems where energy--and its state--are predominent, then
entropy is measuring the state and degree of the energy (e.g.
in the second law of thermo-D).

But information systems are also have entropy, and in that case
we're talking about the accuracy (specifically, lack of) of that
information.  Shannon and his Information Theory really codified
entropy as a mathmatical concept.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Espen Amundsen wrote:

> "Programmer Dude" <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message
> news:3FD0D5FD.76C2CD88@Sonnack.com...
> 
>>Espen Amundsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is
>>>the same that we can move things with the force of mind.
>>
>>There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
>>required for a single mind to move a material object and that
>>required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
>>of random noise in the local fabric.
> 
> True, but the idea is the same.

Not at all.  One is an exercise of focusing the will, or whatever, to 
alter a macroverse object.  The other is possibly a side-effect of the 
complex wave patterns produced by the human brain en masse.  Or perhaps 
something more than that.

The important thing is that there appear to be quite different rules 
between the macro- and micro-verse.  An electron follows rules that a 
baseball never heard about, and vice versa.

>>>Im a realist and can only relate to things empirically.
>>
>>Yep.  Time will tell.
> 
> empiri = what you know by experience

Ah, but the things you /don't/ have any experience of may still be real. 
  I am quite comfortable with the knowledge that my brother exists, even 
though you have no experience of him *shrug*

And of course: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but 
stranger than we /can/ imagine." - JBS Haldane.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Corey Murtagh wrote:

> The important thing is that there appear to be quite different rules
> between the macro- and micro-verse.  An electron follows rules that
> a baseball never heard about, and vice versa.

Actually, the electron's rules do apply to the baseball, but the
macro effects completely overwhelm them.

> And of course: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine,
> but stranger than we /can/ imagine." - JBS Haldane.

Hey, good for you.  Most people attribute that one wrong.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<3FD0D5FD.76C2CD88@Sonnack.com>...
> Espen Amundsen wrote:
> 
> > The idea that we can in large group inflict on randomgenerators is
> > the same that we can move things with the force of mind.
> 
> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
> required for a single mind to move a material object and that
> required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
> of random noise in the local fabric.

We can certainly calculate the amount of energy needed to move a
particular physical object under defined conditions using known
physical laws.  If we hypothesize that we are moving the object by
mind power or telekinesis, we must also acknowledge that the known
laws of physics are not complete or predictive in this case.  We don't
know and can't predict the amount of energy, or even if this is a
properly stated question.

Also, what do you suppose is the amount of energy required to collapse
a quantum wave function at a selected one of two single-photon
detectors, detecting a photon "split" with exactly 50% probability for
either detector?
This is a way of saying how much energy does it take to influence a
quantum random number generator in a particular direction.  Classical
physics doesn't have any answer.  Even quantum physics could not give
a real, quantitative answer.

Just a few thoughts for discussion.

Scott Wilber
> 
> Both may turn out to be absurd; both may turn out to be the Real
> Goods,... or any combination inbetween.
>

Scott Wilber wrote:

>> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
>> required for a single mind to move a material object and that
>> required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
>> of random noise in the local fabric.
> 
> We can certainly calculate the amount of energy needed to move a
> particular physical object under defined conditions using known
> physical laws.  If we hypothesize that we are moving the object by
> mind power or telekinesis, we must also acknowledge that the known
> laws of physics are not complete or predictive in this case.

Indeed.  This has always been the problem with telekinesis as shown
in fiction.  Lifting a car with ones brain suggests the power comes
from ... somewhere.  There are leverage issues, too.

(Which *suggests* strongly telekinesis is imaginary.)


> ...how much energy does it take to influence a quantum random
> number generator in a particular direction.  Classical physics
> doesn't have any answer.  Even quantum physics could not give
> a real, quantitative answer.

Should consciousness turn out to be a fundimental force, it may
be a matter of interaction rather than energy.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<3FDDF1F1.80717728@Sonnack.com>...
> Scott Wilber wrote:
> 
> >> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy
> >> required for a single mind to move a material object and that
> >> required for a union of all minds to somehow affect the balance
> >> of random noise in the local fabric.
> > 
> > We can certainly calculate the amount of energy needed to move a
> > particular physical object under defined conditions using known
> > physical laws.  If we hypothesize that we are moving the object by
> > mind power or telekinesis, we must also acknowledge that the known
> > laws of physics are not complete or predictive in this case.
> 
> Indeed.  This has always been the problem with telekinesis as shown
> in fiction.  Lifting a car with ones brain suggests the power comes
> from ... somewhere.  There are leverage issues, too.
> 
> (Which *suggests* strongly telekinesis is imaginary.)
> 
> 
> > ...how much energy does it take to influence a quantum random
> > number generator in a particular direction.  Classical physics
> > doesn't have any answer.  Even quantum physics could not give
> > a real, quantitative answer.
> 
> Should consciousness turn out to be a fundimental force, it may
> be a matter of interaction rather than energy.

Ah, yes!  The question is, what could be the interaction and what
might its mechanism of interaction consists of?

I would propose that, hypothetically of course, what determines the
outcome in a pure quantum random number generator is an interference
of probability, i.e., quantum, waves.  In the "split" photon device,
the photon provides one quantum wave and the quantum vacuum (sometimes
referred to as the zero point energy) provides the other, apparently
random, quantum wave.  This all occurs outside what is commonly called
the physical universe.  Therefore, concepts of time and space, which
are only properly defined in the "physical" universe, do not apply.

Suppose, again hypothetically, that some aspect of what we call
consciousness has a counterpart in the non-physical or quantum state.
(Can't call it a universe because it is not physical)  Suppose further
that this aspect of consciousness can also interact with quantum
probability waves to produce a combined interference pattern.  This is
just a mathematical or even philosophical abstraction at the moment,
but if such an interaction could be concretely demonstrated, it would
represent a specific mechanism of interaction between consciousness
and the physical universe.  After all, if one "intends" a quantum
random number generator to produce a one instead of a zero, and this
outcome is physically measured, the physical universe has, indeed been
affected by a mental intention.

The potential amount of force, or other effects, available by
affecting the usually perfectly balanced properties of the quantum
vacuum is incalculable.  It does not necessarily follow that "size
matters" in this realm.

Scott

swilber@comscire.com (Scott Wilber) writes:

> Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<3FDDF1F1.80717728@Sonnack.com>...
> Suppose, again hypothetically, that some aspect of what we call
> consciousness has a counterpart in the non-physical or quantum state.
> (Can't call it a universe because it is not physical)  Suppose further
> that this aspect of consciousness can also interact with quantum
> probability waves to produce a combined interference pattern.  ...
> After all, if one "intends" a quantum
> random number generator to produce a one instead of a zero, and this
> outcome is physically measured, the physical universe has, indeed been
> affected by a mental intention.

An experiment for this can be done at home: place two polarizers at
45 degree angles to each other in a light beam.  Use a photocell
connected to a meter to measure the intensity which, presumably, is
the chance of collapse to a state.

If the polarizers are perfect, the quantum math says that half the
photons should pass through the second polarizer.  In any case the
*change* in number of photons (light intensity) indicates an
influence.

Of course, there are all sorts of critiques of the experiment.  Maybe
one's mind interacts with electron energy level (or proton positions
or ...), not photon polarizations.  Maybe one must have "faith" for it
to work.  Maybe air currents are causing spurious positive results
(use a bell jar).  That's the fun of experiments.

Any reproducible result would be news worthy.  (Any nonreproducible
results can be submitted to the Journal of Irreproducible Results.)

-paul-
-- 
Paul E. Black (p.black@acm.org)

p.black@acm.org (Paul E. Black) wrote in message news:<m50u13ze4h6.fsf_-_@tombstone.sdct.nist.gov>...
> swilber@comscire.com (Scott Wilber) writes:
> 
> > Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<3FDDF1F1.80717728@Sonnack.com>...
> > Suppose, again hypothetically, that some aspect of what we call
> > consciousness has a counterpart in the non-physical or quantum state.
> > (Can't call it a universe because it is not physical)  Suppose further
> > that this aspect of consciousness can also interact with quantum
> > probability waves to produce a combined interference pattern.  ...
> > After all, if one "intends" a quantum
> > random number generator to produce a one instead of a zero, and this
> > outcome is physically measured, the physical universe has, indeed been
> > affected by a mental intention.
> 
> An experiment for this can be done at home: place two polarizers at
> 45 degree angles to each other in a light beam.  Use a photocell
> connected to a meter to measure the intensity which, presumably, is
> the chance of collapse to a state.
> 
> If the polarizers are perfect, the quantum math says that half the
> photons should pass through the second polarizer.  In any case the
> *change* in number of photons (light intensity) indicates an
> influence.

It's a good thought, but has a slight flaw.  Any "constant" beam of
light has only an average intensity at any instant, since the beam is
composed of quantized photons.  The number of photons that hit the
photocell in any time interval will have a statistical variation. 
This effect is known as photon shot noise.  The result is that the
measured photocurrent in the photocell will have the usual shot noise
component which is equal to Sqrt[2 I q BW](Amps rms), where I is the
photocurrent, q is the charge on an electron and BW is the measurement
bandwidth in Hz. http://www.utdallas.edu/~hellums/docs/ShotNoise.pdf

Perhaps there is a simple way to use polarization to look for possible
effects of intention on the photon wave functions.(?)  One challenge
to overcome, besides shot noise, is that there is no such thing as a
"perfect" polarizer, although we have some pretty good ones.

Scott Wilber 
> 
> Of course, there are all sorts of critiques of the experiment.  Maybe
> one's mind interacts with electron energy level (or proton positions
> or ...), not photon polarizations.  Maybe one must have "faith" for it
> to work.  Maybe air currents are causing spurious positive results
> (use a bell jar).  That's the fun of experiments.
> 
> Any reproducible result would be news worthy.  (Any nonreproducible
> results can be submitted to the Journal of Irreproducible Results.)
> 
> -paul-

swilber@comscire.com (Scott Wilber) writes:

> p.black@acm.org (Paul E. Black) wrote in message news:<m50u13ze4h6.fsf_-_@tombstone.sdct.nist.gov>...
> > swilber@comscire.com (Scott Wilber) writes:
> > > Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote in message news:<3FDDF1F1.80717728@Sonnack.com>...
> > > Suppose further
> > > that this aspect of consciousness can also interact with quantum
> > > probability waves to produce a combined interference pattern.  ...
> > 
> > An experiment for this can be done at home: place two polarizers at
> > 45 degree angles to each other in a light beam.  Use a photocell
> > connected to a meter to measure the intensity which, presumably, is
> > the chance of collapse to a state.
> 
> It's a good thought, but has a slight flaw.

I'm sure it has many.  I'm glad you bring this one up.

> ... statistical variation. 
> This effect is known as photon shot noise.
> 
> ... there is no such thing as a
> "perfect" polarizer, although we have some pretty good ones.

Rather than trying to design a definitive experiment from the start,
someone might try simple things to see if there is *any* observable
change.  Once (and supposing) some change in readings is detected, the
experimental setup can be refined to reduce noise, exclude possible
alternative explanations, reproduce the effect, etc.

-paul-
-- 
Paul E. Black (p.black@acm.org)