Researchers roll Einstein's dice: Developing a quantum random number generator

Wow, novel idea. I read about how the early Las Vegas teams cracked slot machines when they figured out the RNG was actually just a list of numbers, all they had to do was get ahold of the lists, manufacturers in turn started using larger lists of numbers.

Question though, even if they have truly succeeded in making a true RNG based on vacuum fluctuations, doesn't any use for security purposes still inherently ride with the protocols used to transfer said numbers ?

Wheny I need truly random numbers I get them from a site which has a random number generator set up which uses radioactive decay:
http://www.fourmi...hotbits/

doesn't any use for security purposes still inherently ride with the protocols used to transfer said numbers ?

There are a few aproaches you can use
- (propely implemented!) entanglement. While this does not ensurethat no one else gets yur key it does make certain that you can almost immediately detect when someone is listening in on the transfer of your key (and you can then immediately stop it)
- physical distribution of such randomly generated encryption keys

I love this idea. It will be great to have a non psuedo random number generator.
I wonder, though, if when we have better quantum theories we will come to realize that these fluctuations too are not random and really just more information is needed in order to accurately predict.
I have no idea if there is any merit to that, but it makes me think.

It's from black holes sucking all the information out of the universe. Loool, serious question, if no black holes existed, would vacuum fluctuations be any different ?

According to our best theories to date (theoretical physics and cosmology are great, huh?), technically entropy is not removed by black holes. It remains on the event horizon and is converted to Hawking radiation, which he asserts is actually non-random as well. This also solves the messy problem of information being broadcast to parallel universes.

I would also not be surprised if these fluctuations were not random, but I don't think we'll ever have the ability to predict them nor to decode smoke from a burnt paper back into writing.

Depends on whether a fixed point exists for unbounded sets:
http://www.physor...ics.html

that determines true randomness.

What I don't understand, is why there aren't small IC-chips that derive random bits simply from thermal noise in a transistor, or whatever. Especially when phones have accelerometers, gyroscopes and compasses, that all are the size of sand grains anyway.

Compared to these, a random bit streamer should be a very easy thing. We could have one in every computer and every phone and every networked device in the world.

I love this idea. It will be great to have a non psuedo random number generator.
I wonder, though, if when we have better quantum theories we will come to realize that these fluctuations too are not random and really just more information is needed in order to accurately predict.
I have no idea if there is any merit to that, but it makes me think.

I don't believe in random.

I suggest you study the I Ching. It would probably be very interesting to you.

http://en.wikiped.../I_Ching

The basic idea is that it is the pattern the underlies all "random" events.

So given ...I do not know what... my moniker can randomly be generated using this novel device.
The next physorg article will be generated by the quantum random number generator.
:)
Bring it on.

The concept of true randomness is very disturbing if you fully understand it. True randomness represents the defeat of reason and the vindication of magic.

de Broglie Deterministic Dice and emerging Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

Donatello Dolce
(Submitted on 11 Nov 2011)
Generalizing the de Broglie hypothesis of intrinsically periodic matter fields, it is shown that the basic quantum behavior of ordinary field theory can be retrieved in a semi-classical and geometrical way from the assumption of intrinsic periodicity of elementary systems. The geometrodynamical description of interactions that arises in this theory provides an intuitive interpretation of Maldacena's conjecture and it turns out to be of the same type of the one prescribed by general relativity.
Comments: 10 pages, 7 figures, talk given at DICE2011 (Space-Time-Matter), minor corrections
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 306 012049 (2011)
DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/012049
Cite as: arXiv:1111.3319v1 [physics.gen-ph]

http://arxiv.org/...19v1.pdf

Cool paper, what little I understand. Periodic paths combined to show path integrals...?, being a Feynman fan, I find that to be a pretty interesting concept.

True randomness represents the defeat of reason

Yet true randomness means also that 'free' will is possible.

But no one argues for true randomness. There are (infinitely) more possibilities than the false dichotomy between determinism and randomness.

Anything that is beyond an observers sensitivity scope, is in essence "random" for that particular observer.

And as even in an infinite Universe, sensitivity can only approach (but never reach) infinity, there will allways be some "random" left for any of an infinite amount of observers, regardless of their position on an infinitely broad sensitivity chart. In other words, it is relative.

But for a QM observer, the lower limits of this sensitivity are very precisely defined by the planck constant and its derivates.

So from a "quantum physical" perspective (considering quantum fluctuations as being truly random), a "physical analogue of truly a random die" - as proposed by the scientists in question - might actually been achieved.

Question remains, however, how well this fares "outside of the QM box", ergo in the perspective of reality itself..

As for a truly random process to be truly random, it would have to directly violate any and every trace of causality..

Yet true randomness means also that 'free' will is possible.

Well, I guess it's up to anyones individual taste, wether 'true randomness' (magic) or 'infinite complexity', is preffered, when it comes to 'free will' :-)

But no one argues for true randomness.

And that's maybe the problem..

The concept of true randomness is very disturbing if you fully understand it. True randomness represents the defeat of reason and the vindication of magic.

I agree that the concept of true randomness is quite mysterious. In fact, if true randomness exists, it can be thought of as the ultimate cause/source of everything. The easiest way to get rid of it, I would say, is to uphold the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. But that does not make the world any less mysterious.

Thou shalt not treat lightly the concept of randomness! ;-)

Yet true randomness means also that 'free' will is possible.

I'd like to talk about this more if you'll entertain me...

I understand how if there were no true randomness then everything must be deterministic which means no free will, however I don't understand how the existence of true randomness provides the possibility of free will.

Free will is not random, if it is or is based on something random it is not will. It seems that in these discussions, and participate in many both here and on other forums, that everyone confuses free will with randomness. I don't see how the two have anything to do with each other.

If "free will" exists, which I don't think it does, it must be a fundamental force that conscious entities can control to assert their will over the other forces, and thus over physical law. This has nothing to do with anything being random. Freedom of will is the exact opposite of randomness, will is the exact opposite of randomness.

LOL, are you a Calvinist, Chris? It would sure fit into your overinflated sense of self.

however I don't understand how the existence of true randomness provides the possibility of free will.

Free in the sense of 'not deterministic'. Not free in the sense of 'we can do whatever we want'. Randomness just means we're not robots.

I understand how if there were no true randomness then everything must be deterministic

Not quite: consider a closed system (chamber) with gas molecules randomly moving about. The velocities close to the edges of the chamber will not be equally distributed.

There are plenty of laws that do not allow determinism (e.g. radioactive decay where a atom can decay a number of ways). But that does not mean that all decay events are equally likely...so: no determinism but also no true randomness.

The idea about scope that daywalk3r mentioned is neat.

I've been thinking it would be neat to make a little USB gizmo that uses radio interference. Such a device hooked up to a computer two feet away from another one would be receiving slightly different radio noise and so would generate different numbers. So the "scope" of a radio device is similar to the wavelength size of the radio waves that it's receiving.

It could be super cheap too, a crystal radio circuit and a tiny USB capable microcontroller is all that's needed (heh plus some software dev of course). In fact hrm I bet I have everything I need here to actually build this.

however I don't understand how the existence of true randomness provides the possibility of free will.

Free in the sense of 'not deterministic'. Not free in the sense of 'we can do whatever we want'. Randomness just means we're not robots.

Well no, randomness means you aren't a deterministic robot, you would still be a random robot...

Not quite: consider a closed system (chamber) with gas molecules randomly moving about. The velocities close to the edges of the chamber will not be equally distributed.

There are plenty of laws that do not allow determinism (e.g. radioactive decay where a atom can decay a number of ways). But that does not mean that all decay events are equally likely...so: no determinism but also no true randomness.

You mentioned truly random elements in both of those examples... true randomness does not mean always observing a perfectly even distribution of possibilities... at least that's not what I mean when I say it.

All our deterministic observables are based on such uneven distributions. Sometimes these distributions are just VERY uneven. Consider resting your hand on a table. Is it deterministic that your hand does not pass through the table? No it isn't. There is an (infinitisemal) chance that all the atoms in your hand chose this exact same time to exhibit a tunnel event.

Even though it would take an enourmously big number of lifetimes of the universe for this to be ever observed it's not deterministic. Determinism is just a way saying "so close that it amkes no difference". But there is not really anything truly deterministic in this universe.

But there is not really anything truly deterministic in this universe.

That's your opinion based on the HUP and the bell experiments and such... frankly I think that we simply cannot detect the deterministic source yet, if ever. I think this because I don't believe in magic...

If you cannot detect the reason for something it appears to have no reason. If I lived in a tin roof shack with no windows my whole life and knew nothing of reality outside of my shack it would appear to me that the noise made by rain on the tin roof had no reason, I might then conclude that it was random and non-deterministic simply because I wasn't aware of it's cause.

Just because we don't know the cause of these seemingly random events does not mean that they do not have a cause and are actually non-deterministic. To think otherwise is foolish.

I think this because I don't believe in magic...

The one does not follow from the other.

Consider proteins. The first protein at the very start of the evolutionary game had a certain chirality. Naturally all proteins derived therefrom down the ages will have that same chirality. The odd random protein with the opposite chirality will not have a chance once the other types get the upper hand. Random start - non-random series thereafter. No magic involved whatsoever.

Randomness does not mean equal distribution. Even if it did: equal distribution does not necessarily mean homogeneous distribution (i.e. it is quite possible to have locally skewed randomness with a global perfectly evenly ditributed random system. ) Again: No magic needed.

The antrophic principle would be a perfect example of this.

Just because we don't know the cause of these seemingly random events does not mean that they do not have a cause and are actually non-deterministic.

Determinism would show up in the statistics. There are tests for randomness. Quantum effects conform to these tests very well.

If a larger system is non-deterministic then the sumtotal of all things it is based on cannot be deterministic (or those things are deterministic in such a way that they cancel each other out with great precision - which means they are linked in some way...which in turn makies them not *separate* underlying systems)

Consider proteins. The first protein at the very start of the evolutionary game had a certain chirality. Naturally all proteins derived therefrom down the ages will have that same chirality. The odd random protein with the opposite chirality will not have a chance once the other types get the upper hand. Random start - non-random series thereafter. No magic involved whatsoever.

I don't believe it was a random start...

Randomness does not mean equal distribution.

I told you this a few posts ago...

It's simple, if something happens for no reason it is magic... that is the definition of magic. Random things are random because they happen for no reason.

Magic is the occurrence of something with no explanation. There can be no explanation for true randomness, therefore it is magic by definition.

Determinism would show up in the statistics.

Not necessarily, consider your scope... you may have insufficient scope. Just like looking at n digits of a string of digits may lead you to believe there is no pattern, if you look at n*m digits, or n^m digits, or whatever, you may then see a pattern.

If a larger system is non-deterministic then the sumtotal of all things it is based on cannot be deterministic

Great, but this is nonsense because you cannot determine if the larger system is deterministic or not without knowing whether or not everything it is based on is non-deterministic.

The "appearance" of non-deterministic behavior in a large system is not proof that it is non-deterministic. You have to have knowledge of ALL underlying mechanisms.

if something happens for no reason it is magic...

Nope. Just random. Magic would imply something supernatural. Why should randomness not be natural?
'Random' is just a description - not a force. (Just like 'causality' is just a description - not a force)

Consider this: take a measurement of everything that can be measured. Ever. You'll now have a large (but finite) number of datapoints representing the entirety of the universe.

For simplicity's sake let's say there are only 5 such datapoints:
2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Is that causal (e.g. by f(t) = 2*t )
Or were they random?
Or generated by some other deterministic function (there are an infinity of polynomial functions alone that will get you that series)
You can't tell with certainty.

Causality went out the window 1927 with the Uncertainty principle. Only correlation remained (which, in macroscopic cases looks - but is not quite - the same).

Yeah I know, you keep mentioning the HUP and related experiments... I mentioned it first... We don't know enough about the underlying systems to make such authoritative claims about that which they are based on.

The freaky thing is that we never CAN know enough to make a definite statement. Luckily science isn't about being right - it's about finding a model that works.
I.e. the 'search for truth' isn't part of science (because there is no definite truth to be had from limited numbers of measurements)
On the other hand this ensures that there will always be science because if no FINAL answer can be had then - with more measurements - a BETTER answer can always be found than the one we have at any one time.

Then we must also remind ourselves that the universe actually has no rules - it just is.
Humans make rules to handle DIFFERENT things (events) with common classifications.

E.g. we say two hydrogens are the same, react the same, etc. but no two hydrogens are ever truly the same. At the very least their positions are different. Different positions mean - and be it ever so slightly - different environments. And hence - and be it ever so slightly - different behaviors.

Well considering there will be no resolution here I can at least agree with you on that...

take a measurement of everything that can be measured. Ever. You'll now have a large (but FINITE) number..

Well what can I say.. There is little point in arguing with someone, for whom everything is allready perfectly known and imovably settled. No scientist worth his salt would ever dare to make such a bold statement/assumption, knowing just how limited his momentary knowledge and capabilities are - let alone use it as a fundamental base to build all his theories upon, "card tower" style..

Causality went out the window 1927 with the Uncertainty principle.

Wanted to make a joke about a very particular set of famous deceased scientists turning in their graves, but decided not to :)

Thinking out of the QM box might seem impossible at first, but those who don't try, have no chance to succeed.. at least in a non-random, non-QM world, that is ;-D

Question for you: Was your decision to participate in this discussion deterministic,or just random, as proposed by you earlier? :-/

Determinism would show up in the statistics. There are tests for randomness. Quantum effects conform to these tests very well.

Actually, quantum effects (as by QM) HAVE to conform with such statistical tests,as QM is essentially a statistical framework used to approximate reality at levels which are often beyond our sensitivity threshold. Meaning, that for QM not to conform with statistical tests,it would need to not conform with itself, which of course,is nonsense.

If a larger system is non-deterministic then the sumtotal of all things it is based on cannot be deterministic

Name one known "larger" system, that is proven to be of non-deterministic nature.. And by "proven" I mean with undeniable/undisputable evidence, which excludes "by HUP" or "by AWT follows",or similar nonsense..

Why should randomness not be natural?

Actually, the logically correct approach would be to ask: Why should it?

And last but not least,simply assuming no cause is nothing but flawed logic.

I don't believe in random.

- CHollman

Maybe because theres is no such thing as 'random' but I'm not going to get into this old argument. Suffice to say, CHollman, I tend to agree with your comments.

Voltaire (or not?) ..

'Chance is the known effect of every unknown cause'

One more quite important note regardign this:

Consider proteins. The first protein at the very start of the evolutionary game had a certain chirality. Naturally all proteins derived therefrom down the ages will have that same chirality. The odd random protein with the opposite chirality will not have a chance once the other types get the upper hand. Random start - non-random series thereafter.

But by carefully following this very logic of yours, you can ALLWAYS "back-track" one-more-step-back in any process!

Like for example, that there was a particle interaction involved in the determination of chirality of the very first protein. You might then say, that it was THIS interaction, which was the "initial random source". But then again, the source which gave the particle its energy to affect the protein, actually came from a nearby cosmic ray particle collision, which just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and with the right ammount of energy.. And then yet again, the path of this CR particle was affected by a myriad of other interactions (like with gamma rays, for ex.) before it finally collided. Then you come to what caused to cosmic ray, and what caused the event that caused the CR. Then what caused the CR particle itself to even exist in its specific shape and form.. and so on..

And you keep backtracking and backtracking, till at some point you come to the inevitable conclusion, that the only possible source of any "randomness" in the Universe would be the very initial impulse/moment of its CREATION! Of course with the absolutely necessary assumption, that there was a beginning, to begin with..

And then, what if that beginning was not an "absolute" one? ;-)

..it would need to not conform with itself, which of course,is nonsense...

The conformation with statistical tests, which is known as a violation of Bell's inequalities is valid only locally (both in time, both in space). For example, the quantum mechanics enables the principle of so-called weak measurement (a solution of Elitzur-Vaidman problem), which breaks the statistical character of quantum mechanics, despite of it is derived from quantum mechanics. After all, if the QM would be of solely statistical nature, it couldn't predict anything.

So it shouldn't be strange, that recently the detection of local path during double slit experiment and/or indirect measurement of quantum function was achieved. It's a bad message for formally thinking physicists, who are considering the quantum mechanics too schematically.

http://www.nature...344.html
http://www.nature...120.html

by "proven" I mean with undeniable/undisputable evidence, which excludes "by HUP" or "by AWT follows",or similar nonsense

Because we already detected the path of photons during double slit experiments and/or quantum wave function, we know about the ways, how to broke the statistic character of quantum mechanics, so that this evidence still opens the way to the "AWT nonsense".

The trick is, with pure surface waves we really cannot observe the underwater effects, even at the water surface, which is serving as an analogy of space-time at the AWT. So, if we would take the wave mechanics too schematically, we would exclude the violation of statistical character of QM with AWT too.

But as we know, the real physical waves at the water surface are never pure transverse ones, so that the worlds of indeterministic quantum mechanics and deterministic general relativity are always mixed, at the CMBR wavelength scale in particular.

If they wouldn't, we couldn't exist here, after all.

Free Will is nothing more than an illusion, and even that only as long as one looks at it from within his own mind.

But what's the use of writing it here? Half the readers don't even understand the difference between random and arbitrary.

There is little point in arguing with someone, for whom everything is allready perfectly known and imovably settled.

Who claimed that everything is known? No one did.
This was a thought experiment of what would happen if everything _were_ known. Showing that even then you could never be sure of your laws or whether everything is random.

Name one known "larger" system, that is proven to be of non-deterministic nature..

Atomic decay. Anything that depends on atomic decay by extension.
Tunneling. Any kind of interaction where tunneling can happen (which means all matter-matter interaction).

This Bell quote might be appropriate:

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

Have to add that Bell himself did not believe in this type of deterministic reality, and so was allways an opponent to such interpretations.

When it comes to what I "believe" in, reality is either deterministic, or it is not. There is no "in-between", as proposed by many, to keep their pet QM interpretations alive.

Also the conclusions about the concept of "free will" are in most cases wastly exagerated. My take on a superdeterministic explanation of "free will" is, that even if reality is supercausal, the effects within are not determinable with arbitrary (absolute) precission, because cause is infinitely fractionable in nature.

So the idea of "free will" is conserved, at least to a certain (approaching infinity) extent.

Why should randomness not be natural?

Actually, the logically correct approach would be to ask: Why should it?

Nope. Occams Razor would indicate that it's simpler to postulate no law (i.e. randomness) than to postulate a law.

To have a law you need to have a reason why that law is the way it is - which forces you to declare a metalaw. that metalaw again needs to be supported by some rationale - ad infinitum.

So having no law seems one of two ways out of this. (The other alternative is to have 'all laws' and a multiverse model)

The other alternative is to have 'all laws' and a multiverse model

The multiverse model follows from random universe as well.

There is little point in arguing with someone, for whom everything is allready perfectly known and imovably settled.

Who claimed that everything is known?

It was you, by the assumption - or should we rather call it a statement, that if you:

take a measurement of everything that can be measured. Ever. You'll now have a large (but FINITE) number of datapoints representing the entirety of the universe.

as it directly and inevitably implies, that "everything that ever existed", is absolutely FINITE (notice the CAPS in my former quote).

Name one known "larger" system, that is proven to be of non-deterministic nature.

Atomic decay.

You wish..

Tunneling.

Even more ridiculous of a wish..

If atomic decay would be completely random-based, there also would be no correlation between various atomic nuclei and their half-lives. Just because something is not measured or of unknown nature/origin, does not make it automatically non-existent. Ditto about tunneling..

Nope. Occams Razor would indicate that it's simpler to postulate no law (i.e. randomness) than to postulate a law.

Cause/effect hardly represets a "law" per se. At least not more than the statement, that no determinate cause exists for every effect. You are dragging Occam by his very balls to irrational extremes here..

To have a law you need to have a reason why that law is the way it is

So actually, what you are proposing is, that it is better to have nothing, than something? And that it is better to assume no reason? Interesting.. Though I might preffer a somewhat different approach to that matter.

So having no law seems one of two ways out of this.

Again, dragging poor Occam to extremes, with the "all laws" interpretation being the opposite extreme. Maybe the concept of fixed "laws" is just not appropriate to describe all of reality. Relativity was a nice example on how a lot of commonly accepted "bombproof laws" can be so missleading..

You are dragging Occam by his very balls to irrational extremes here

Why to assume uniform zero number or zero state as the most natural state of the Universe? Why not number four or 3.14 for example? Why the Universe should be smooth and uniform at all?

At the water surface the underwater cannot be observed with surface ripples at all. Is it because the underwater doesn't exist for surface ripples because it's zero? Not at all, it's because the motion of water molecules of underwater is too random for highly organized surface ripples. AWT presumes, the seeming emptiness of space is realized in the same way. It means, the randomness can explain even the seeming zero state observed without violation of macroscopic causality.

We cannot observe many things as a real because they're too random. After all, whole the mainstream physics refuses to research many boundary phenomena not because they don't exist as such, but because they cannot be reproduced easily.

We should realize, even the random state isn't completely random. It exhibits statistical distribution, which consists from well known fact, the large repetitions in it are more rare, than the small ones. In the line of dice throws the sequence of four sixes is more rare, than the sequence of three sixes in the line and so on. If it wouldn't, we wouldn't consider such sequence as random anymore. It's important aspect of reality - we can construct random geometry just based on the probability rules in it. This geometry is similar to fractal Perlin's noise i.e. the random geometry of density fluctuations inside of Boltzmann gas. AWT considers, if the density of Boltzmann gas would converge to infinity, then the geometry of its density fluctuations will converge to the appearance of real Universe without introduction of any additional rules, laws or principles. So far I didn't make any large scale simulations of this model, but some principles of it are apparent even without it.

At the water surface the underwater cannot be observed with surface ripples at all.

Believe it or not, the surface and "the underwater" are correlated. At the very least because without "the underwater", there would be no water surface to begin with.

it's because the motion of water molecules of underwater is too random for highly organized surface ripples.

it's because the cummulative effect of motion of water molecules of underwater (the part that does not mutually cancel out) is mostly too small to be discernible/measurable, in comparison to the relatively well defined character of surface ripples. (fixed it for you)

But it doesn't mean that the effect is non-deterministic (eg. random) in nature. Something is still leaking through, from "the underwater", albeit maybe very miniscule in magnitude. This usually manifests itself as part of the "random" background noise.

And then there are the more significant macro-effects of "the underwater" on the surface, like rogue waves, or even tsunami, which have a somewhat more signifficant effect on the shape and form of surface ripples, which apart from other mechanisms, is also caused by the acceleration / kinetic energy transfer between the molecules of "the underwater" and the molecules of the surface (including thermal energy).

At the very least because without "the underwater", there would be no water surface to begin with.

This is just why I'm saying, without aether we wouldn't have empty space for observation of distant objects. But whereas such insight appears trivial from perspective of dense aether theory, from perspective of deterministic observation of the space with its own waves such insight is not apparent at all. Because NO environment can be observed just with its own waves by its very definition. If we can observe something, it becomes a subject, not a mean of observation. From perspective of surface ripples the water surface is always flat and empty, no matter how it's actually stormy and undulating.

This is probably why the dense aether model is so difficult to grasp with schematically thinking people. It deals with the observable reality just from perspective, which isn't directly observable.

But it doesn't mean that the effect is non-deterministic (eg. random) in nature. Something is still leaking through, from "the underwater", albeit maybe very miniscule in magnitude.

At the case of vacuum the indeterministic portion is leaking too in the form of CMBR noise. In this aspect the water surface model corresponds exactly the space-time formed with particle vacuum (even the average wavelength of these fluctuations leaking remains roughly the same). One of important predictions of AWT therefore is, we can have never completely empty space-time, it's dimensionality must be always violated - or we cannot have space-time at all. If we wouldn't observe the CMBR noise at the case of Oliver Lodge, we should predict it.

But the another aspect of this prediction is, the alleged gravitational waves are equivalent to this noise and they're superluminal, because the underwater waves which are penetrating the surface as a Brownian noise are always faster than the surface waves.

Why should randomness not be natural?

Actually, the logically correct approach would be to ask: Why should it?

Nope. Occams Razor would indicate that it's simpler to postulate no law (i.e. randomness) than to postulate a law.

The simplest explanation in your opinion is that there is no explanation?

I just wanted to add that the existence of free will does not hinge on determinism... even in a non-deterministic reality I still don't see any evidence for FW. FW, as I consider it, is the ability to assert ones will over reality... unfortunately that will is a part of reality and as such cannot be removed from it in order to affect it without first being affected by it. In which case the affect that you had cannot be called will, but merely the result of reality itself. This holds true in a non-deterministic reality as well so long as the source of the non-determinism is not under the direct and intentional control of humans and other conscious entities.

True freedom of will requires direct conscious monopolistic control over reality. It would require each of us to be able to manipulate the effects of causes at the lowest hierarchical level of existence... otherwise events at lower levels than that which we control would affect us and prevent our will.

I see my fan club is out in full force...

I'm just kidding, it's one loser who registered like 8 accounts and has nothing better to do than downvote all of my posts for a reason I can't even remember because I am not a weirdo.

That's okay though, as far as I can tell given the evidence I have you have no ultimate control over your actions, free will is an illusion, you are as destined to act like a petulant child as I am to deride you for it... I do enjoy the dance though, even if neither of us are leading.

CHollman, I agree with your POV in this thread and its 5's from me (reluctantly cause you are an arrogant twit most times). I think we might both have the same anti-fan club.

CHollman, I agree with your POV in this thread and its 5's from me (reluctantly cause you are an arrogant twit most times). I think we might both have the same anti-fan club.

I know we've heatedly disagreed on things in the past, so it's good to know that there are still people here who can remain impartiality and not carry a grudge from one topic of discussion to another, a real sign of maturity and rationality... others would do well to take note.

I meant "maintain impartiality"... not "remain impartiality"... I wish they would get rid of the time limit on editing your comments.

ah, this is always such a good discussion, I wish daywalk3r and AA would stick it out a bit longer though it seems like there is a lot of good debate to be had here.