You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you tell me precisely what it is a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that.
John Von NeumannRead
Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin.
Interpretation
Generating randomness through predictable processes is inherently flawed.
This quote by John Von Neumann highlights the paradox of trying to create randomness using deterministic methods. It suggests that true randomness cannot be achieved through logical or predictable algorithms, implying that such attempts are misguided, akin to a moral failing in the pursuit of genuine randomness.
In practice
In a lecture about the limits of computation, one could quote Von Neumann to emphasize the challenges of randomness.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you tell me precisely what it is a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that.
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work-that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area.
Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin. For, as has been pointed out several times, there is no such thing as a random number - there are only methods to produce random numbers, and a strict arithmetic procedure of course is not such a method.
It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.
Technological possibilities are irresistible to man. If man can go to the moon, he will. If he can control the climate, he will.
I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space any more.
I've always been very one-sided about science, and when I was younger, I concentrated almost all my effort on it.
Exxon, one of the companies that has spent tens of millions of dollars denying climate change, denying any responsibility to deal with, taking government subsidies on a massive scale, now their ads are all about, 'Oh, we want a clean future. We're looking at clean energy and all that stuff.'
Innovation is everyones responsibility, not just R&Ds.
E pur si muove. "Albeit It does move". (That's what Galileo purportedly muttered after torturers forced him to recant his theory that the earth orbits the sun.)
I really like science because it seems to be that place where you get the big picture, everything connects.
My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective in_x000D_ which I am an expert β¦ For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion - 'if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who's merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying'. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.