Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: rand() - implementation ideas [Q]
Message-ID: <jqbE0ItzH.ADq@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <54lr8o$ndm@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us> <3278EDC2.1CFB@ucl.ac.uk> <jqbE05snH.IHs@netcom.com> <3281E0CE.19A@cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 22:18:53 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: jqb@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:41979 comp.ai.philosophy:48436 comp.ai.alife:6856

In article <3281E0CE.19A@cs.bham.ac.uk>,
Anthony J Hook  <a.j.hook-csai96@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think this whole discussion has got out of hand, so what the heck -
>here it goes:
>
>Surely NOTHING can ever be random. Eg When two Molecules interact under
>the same conditions, the same result will be obtained.

Chaos theory tells us that it is impossible to specify "the same conditions"
accurately enough to guarantee the same results, and quantum mechanics tells
us that, even if we could, the results need not obtain.  Welcome to the 20th
century (which is nearly over, so you are *really* behind the times.)

>If we were to zap
>the world in a computer then carry out a simulation - After five years
>say, both 'real' and 'virtual' worlds should be in the same 'state'.
>Therefore everything is set to happen and it will - If we were to speed
>up the computer then it would predict the future extactlly ... maybe!!

Laplace is long dead.
-- 
<J Q B>

