[sdiy] analog loses another niche

[cheater cheater]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:18, Veronica Merryfield
<veronica.merryfield at shaw.ca> wrote:

> For instance, if one were to be able to construct a coin flipping machine such that all the parameters were repeatable (flick position, flick force, starting conditions, wind/air etc), that the results would be predictable.

Not according to quantum mechanics

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 06:22, Veronica Merryfield
<veronica.merryfield at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Why would you consider radioactive decay not to be random?  :-)
>>
>> Ian
>
> It looks random to us now with our current knowledge and understanding, but one day when we have gained that knowledge and understanding, it would be predictable.

You'll have a really hard time having that - according to possibly all
currently valid popular branches of physics atomic decay is truly
random - doesn't mean you can't come up with your own system that will
not only work but become universally accepted, but it might be a bit
difficult.

It is not known (and will never be) whether there are "hidden
variables" in any physical process, therefore the randomness of
anything can be assumed to be true or not. But personally I'm not
interested in discussing whether it really is random that apples fall
down and not up.