🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32091@sri-unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips2.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>> Barry Kort >>> Brian Colfer

>>decisions.  But occasionally I am caught on the razor's edge,
>>with no clear preference between competing alternatives.  Then,
>>like Dorothy at the fork in road, I choose at random (rolling the
>>dice if necessary).

Nothing is random. The so-called "random number generator" is misnamed;
these devices rely on an algorithm that is based in order, though the
pattern is only discernable in the "long run," if it's a good generator.
All machines, whether human or artificial, assume a foundation in order,
wihtout which only breakdown is possible.

A truly random number generator would include the possibility of not
generating a number at all; it might "randomly" break down and then
operate again.  But this wouldn't be very good for our experiments, so
we settle for an order that is difficult to discern.

But why is ther such a bias toward denying the order and law that is the
basis of our environment?  This bias operates everywhere in contemporary
thinking.  Take "chaos theory" as an example -- which is showing that
there are basic and shared patterns that underly seemingly chaotic
behaviours, whether in the weather or in the flow of water and
populations.  So why the heck is it called "chaos theory?"  Why not
something more accurate, like "order" or "pattern" theory?

-Phil