Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2797 talk.philosophy.misc:1679
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Keywords: random? oh no!
Message-ID: <42447@linus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 88 02:38:18 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <0XTukNy00Xol41W1Ui@andrew.cmu.edu> <42328@linus.UUCP> <1069@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: International Malefactor and Fulminator, Roaring Rapids, ME
Lines: 19

In article <1069@microsoft.UUCP> chrispi@microsoft.UUCP (Chris Pirih) 
joins the discussion on quantum randomness vs. Turing-computable randomness:

 >  ...  Besides, is it
 > necessary that a simulated coin-flip be "truly" random, or just
 > effectively unpredictable (i.e., that the Turing android eschew
 > foreknowledge of its pseudo-random pseudo-coin-flip)?  The latter
 > seems sufficient to me.

It is enough that the random number generator be unpredictable
(by *any* predictor, including one who would cheat and examine
my random number generation process).  The only way I know to
do this is to use a quantum amplifier, so that no one can
anticipate the outcome (myself included).  A Turing machine
can compute a pseudo-random sequence, but it cannot implement
a random number generator based on a quantum amplifier.  (Such
a device would cease to be a Turing Machine.)

--Barry Kort