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.
Science is not a substitute for common sense, but an extension of it.
You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you cannot recall a new form of life.
Every discovery opens a new field for investigation of facts, shows us the imperfection of our theories. It has justly been said, that the greater the circle of light, the greater the boundary of darkness by which it is surrounded.
... many folks take them seriously because they just 'know' that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a precisely opposite situation prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.
Nature - how, we don't know - has technology that works in every living cell and that depends on every atom being precisely in the right spot. Enzymes are precise down to the last atom. They're molecules. You put the last atom in, and it's done. Nature does things with molecular perfection.
Innovation is everyones responsibility, not just R&Ds.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.