Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:22:35 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
>> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
>>
>> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
>> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
>> of the dice.  So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
>> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
>
>Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?
>
>(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)


While was Einstein rejecting quantum mechanics with that statement,
the broad consensus is that he was seriously wrong.  QM (in its modern
form) is considered a massively solid theory, backed by masses of
evidence, and tons of tested and verified theoretical predictions. And
everyone fully understands that is also incomplete, and in conflict
with relativity's understanding of gravity (and relativity also has
massive support).  Which is why the search for the so-called
"Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...