On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:57:41 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is >> beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. > > Generate a sequence of "random" bits from your favorite physical source > (radioactive decay, quantum entanglement, or whatever). Is the sequence > really algorithmically random (like in Kolmogorov randomness)? This is > scientifically unknowable.
The definition of “random” is “unknowable”. So all you are stating is a tautology. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
