**Ben Goertzel** (*ben@goertzel.org*)

*Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:57:35 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 196] Re: [time 193] Re: [time 192] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 194] Re: [time 192] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 187] Re: one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"

*>Observed randomness is due to limitations of the observer rather than to
*

inherent randomness of the universe.

Randomness is necessarily subjective, in a finite universe. Random to a

given observer X means "has no patterns detectible by X." That is the only

definition of randomness that

there is.

For infinite entities, one can define objective randomness over the space of

finite observers -- i.e. there are infinite entities that are random for

all finite observers.

But for finite entities, random to X may not be random to Y. (This has to

do with the

fact that bisimulation of Turing machines only works when you assume

arbitrarily

long tapes)

There is no way for me to empirically distinguish something that is "really"

random from something that "looks random to any observer of complexity less

than or equal to my own."

As has been shown by G. Chaitin, this is a reformulation of Godel's

Incompleteness

Theorem.

Ben

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 196] Re: [time 193] Re: [time 192] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 194] Re: [time 192] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 187] Re: one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST
*