Hi, everybody,
Now that the recent burst of metaphysics is completed, I was curious about your
take on the following quote, which is from a footnote in Dennett's Real
Patterns:
"More precisely: 'A series of numbers is random if the smallest algorithm
capable of specifying it to a computer has about the same number of bits of
information as the series itself" (Chaitin, p. 48). This what explalins the
fact that the random number generator built into most computers is not really
properly named, since it is some function describable in a few bits (a
littlesubroutine that is called for some output whenver a program reuires a
'random' number or series).
So far it all makes sense to me. But now Dennett adds the following comment:
If I send you the descriptoin of the pseudo-random number generator on my
computer, you can use it to generate exactly the same infinite series of
random-seeming digits.
Now, it seems to me that IF the behavior of a pseudo-random number generator IS
describable in a very few bits ... if it is a SMALL program ..., then the
pattern it generates is also describable with enormous savings and it is not,
by Dennetts definition, anything like random. It might by mysterious, but no
where near RANDOM.
Can anybody help me understand this. (Please try to say something more helpful
than the well-deserved, "Well, why do you THINK they call it pseudo-random, you
dummy?")What DOES a pseudo randomizing program look like?
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
