> Dave K-P wrote:
>
> > At 11:32 AM 10/12/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> > >An information stream contains a pattern if and only if
> > >it can be compressed and reexpanded without loss,
> > >otherwise it is random. (See Dennett's "Real Patterns"
> > >in the Journal of Philosophy 1991, though he gets it
> > >from someone else, whose details I don't recall right
> > >now, but can get if required.)
> >
> > Hrm, this calls for a re-reading of Chaos. As far as I can
> > recall, however, there is no such thing as "completely random".
> > That what we call chaotic, is really so complexly ordered that
> > there is no _perceptable_
> >
> > pattern by the observer. I'm not sure what this means for the
> > discussion, coming in at the tail end, but it is something to
> > think about.
> >
> > >I guess maybe what we're really arguing about is the
> > >nature of information: does it exist "out there",
> > >independently of us, or is it only in our minds. I go
> > >along with the information theorists, physicists, etc,
> > >and say it's out there, though, of course, the
> > >argument is at least partly about definitions, as
> > >seemingly always.
> >
> > Perhaps it was someone on this list, perhaps not, who said that if
> > a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it
> > makes a compression of air waves... that it is out there, but it
> > takes two to tango.
> >
> > ~kp
>
> kp,
> There is such a thing as true random, in fact, random is the
> ruler.
> You are aware of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, right? A good
> example is: as space expands, sub atomic particles are created (pop
> into existence); however, it is impossible to predict exactly where
> and when this will happen. It is a random event. On the other hand,
> it is impossible for humans or computers to generate a random
> number. SO Random events do happen, but WE have not figured how to
> directly cause a random event.
>
> Sodom
> Bill Roh
> LIGHT? WHAT LIGHT?
While Heisenberg did say that the particles "pop" into existence in a
way that can't be predicted, isn't it possible that there is a
pattern, it is just that we don't have enough information to
understand where the next "pop" is going to be? Isn't that the same
as the "random number" routine--where we "think" we have a random
number but in reality we just don't have a big enough piece to see
the whole picture? Chardin
>