new idea for random number generation

[John Newman]

> On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:31 PM, Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/04/2017 04:40 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> 
>>>> Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height,
>>>> force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same
>>>> result?
>>> 
>>> Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these
>>> variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an
>>> unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the
>>> path the coin takes, etc.
>> 
>> Yes, but those parameters can be expressed with a single vector
>> encoding force and direction.
> 
> Given the number of variables involved, it is impractical for an
> adversary to measure those variables, and vanishingly improbable for the
> coin-tosser to control them well enough to (consciously or otherwise)
> predict or control the outcome.  So the practical criteria for "random"
> are met.
> 
>> The POINT is the number of states of a single 64-bit word, for
>> example, is nearly the number of atoms in the known universe.
> 
> True that - but in mathematics, people deal with numbers larger than
> anything likely to be observed in the gross dimensions of Nature -
> excluding combinatorial dimensions, i.e. the number of possible
> arrangements of grains of sand on the Earth's beaches, which I am sure
> exceeds the diameter of the observable universe measured in millimeters.
> 
> Lucky for cryptographers, they get to deal in combinatorial systems
> almost exclusively.
> 
>>> Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their
>>> inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are
>>> not.
>> 
>> Right, but this is analogous to SEEDING your starting variable -- you
>> only have 1.8E19th choices, LOL.  Practically speaking, double that
>> and you're golden.
>> 
>> After than you just have to communicate your seed value (somehow),
>> like the least significant bit of each pixel in a random image
>> uploaded to the web.
> 
> Ideally key material would be communicated physically, under conditions
> designed to exclude eavesdropping or later exposure of the key to
> hostile parties.
> 
> Using a large stream of random bits as a unique key (called a one time
> pad) provides absolute security against cryptanalysis, provided the key
> is not stolen.
> 

Also provided you aren't so stupid to re-use your one time pads, of course ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project




> A hybrid method where the random bits are "inflated" to a larger bit
> stream for use as a key for messages longer than the random key can
> work.  But as noted earlier, using a hash function to expand a short key
> yields no more entropy; an adversary who knows or guesses what hash
> function was used, needs only "brute force" the original short key to
> recover the whole ciphertext.
> 
>>>> I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe
>>>> must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.
>>> 
>>> This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and
>>> Chaos is ideal for creating life.
>> 
>> Ah, that's only the ecosystem of the Earth.  Science, to my knowledge
>> has not expanded this balance to include the heavens.
> 
> Exobiology is a thing.  In the early days it was a "science without a
> subject matter to study" but that has changed.  A long while back, amino
> acids were discovered in interstellar dust clouds, indicated by spectral
> absorption lines in starlight shining through them.  Closer to home,
> comets have been found to contain a wide range of biochemicals.  For
> reasons I still don't quite understand, people used to talk about
> meteorites from Mars hitting the Earth, and some speculated that life
> may have hitched a ride here on them.  Now this:  According to some
> measurements, what looks like fragments of tissue and even possible
> micro-artifacts containing biological materials are being swept out of
> space by the Earth on a truly massive scale:
> 
> http://www.panspermia.org/balloon2.htm
> 
>>> Almost as if somebody set that up on
>>> purpose.  To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation,
>>> some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct
>>> universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few
>>> have conditions supporting the development of life.
>> 
>> The confusion here is in the word "universe".  The word already
>> encodes an idea of WHAT IS.   Namely, a three dimensional void with a
>> continuous single vector of time.  But see, that order is already
>> presumptive.  (This is why I say "in MY cosmology")..
> 
> I lost count of how many dimensions string theory is up to now.  Maybe
> 19?  As I said, math is my weakest subject.
> 
> Dark matter, which I long considered a modern equivalent of the 19th
> century's Luminiferous Ether, now appears to be a thing; its structure
> has been mapped and space behaves "as if" dark matter was responsible
> for the distribution of galaxies made of 'regular' matter.  So there we
> have empirical evidence of a 'universe next door' that interacts with
> ours exclusively through gravity.
> 
> So why not dozens, millions or quadrillions of "universes", each with
> its own Big Bang and distinct physical laws, coexisting with our own in
> a larger context that contains them all and could be called "the real
> universe"?
> 
> If so, that would explain why our space time continuum appears to be
> designed to create life, without the necessity for a guiding
> intelligence of some kind:  In this scenario our life-generating cosmos
> is not special in any way, except that we happen to be inside it.  No
> evidence supports this multiple-cosmos model; by definition none can.
> But it has become an article of faith among the best educated Atheists;
> their religion can't get by without it.
> 
>>> But if so, there
>>> must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and
>>> the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and
>>> error process get started?  Which jumps us up to yet another "higher"
>>> context, etc. ad infinitum.
>>> 
>>> Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.
>> 
>> LOLz, funny, but there are answers.  Keep probing...
> 
> Maybe there are.  Maybe in some sense I know some of those answers - I
> have had some very unusual experiences as results from intensive
> practice of mystical techniques.  But alas:  The physical brain can not
> encode and retain more than a tiny fragment of that information, and
> language can convey even less.  The verdict of mystical philosophies and
> their associated training programs is unanimous:  The ground state of
> reality can not be described or explained, you have to go and see for
> yourself.
> 
> :o)
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12478 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170805/35d4be21/attachment.txt>