Atmospheric noise & fair coin flipping

[gfgs pedo]

hi,

thanx a lot,there is one more doubt.

>The rules of physics are those that don't change
> from time to time, or
> place to place

i tend to disagree with this.

the hierarchy goes like

okay let us say that two bodies with mass attract each
other.

it was an observation of a physical body,then we make
a mathametical model of the phenomenon.
Based on the mathametical model we make laws of
physics.

The mathametical observations rely on the parameters
that are taken to make the mathametical model.
if the parameters changes,the mathametical model will
have to be changed and new laws have to be brought.

with what certainy can we say that additional
parameters will not be added or removed and that the
laws of physics will stay true for ever?
If a new parameter ever gets added may be two bodies
with mass may repell each other.
can we say that these parameters will never change?

Regards Data.


--- Optimizzin Al-gorithym <al at qaeda.org> wrote:
> At 05:45 AM 7/14/02 -0700, gfgs pedo wrote:
> >it is said that atmospheric noise is random but how
> >can we say for sure.
> 
> Physics, chaos, the growth of initial uncertainty as
> systems evolve,
> energy/time required to make measurements to
> arbitrary precision.
> 
> 
> >what if the parameters giverning atmospheric noise
> >vary frm time 2 time.
> 
> The rules of physics are those that don't change
> from time to time, or
> place to place.
> Certainly the e.g., wind speed does.
> 
> >so can we say atmospheric noise is random or a coin
> >flipping is random-only because it passes die hard
> >test or other randomness tests-which is an
> indicator
> >of randomness with the current defenition of
> >parameters in determing randomness?
> 
> No, since 'anything through a whitener passes' these
> tests.
> The integers (0, 1, 2..) fed into DES will pass.
> (Equivalently) A low-entropy source fed into a hash
> will pass.
> 
> [Historical note: this is why Intel should make its
> raw RNG
> data available in chips with whitened-output RNG
> functions]
> 
> To have a true RNG, You *must* have a physical
> understanding of the
> source
> of entropy whence you distill the pure bits (whether
> or not
> you feed it into a whitener after distillation). 
> Precisely
> because a 'black box' may be a deterministic (if you
> know
> the secret) PRNG.  By 'distill' I mean reduce N bits
> to M,
> N > M, in such a way as to increase the entropy of
> the
> resultant M bits.
> 
> 
> >is there truly random or that we can say with
> certain
> >degre of confidence that they are nearly random as
> all
> >current evidence poits so.
> 
> 'Random' should be taken to mean 'ignorant of'.  It
> suffices
> that we (and our adversary) are ignorant of the
> detailed conditions
> inside a noise diode, unstable atomic nucleus,
> atmospheric
> (or FM radio) noise receiver, etc.  Philosophical
> discussions about
> 'true
> randomness' ("Is there a deeper/smaller level of
> description in
> which apparently-random events are based or emerge
> from?")
> are beyond the scope of this rant.
> 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com