SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
True random numbers are required in fields as diverse as slot machines and data encryption. These numbers need to be truly random, such that they cannot even be predicted by people with detailed knowledge of the method used to generate them.
[...] For this new approach, the ETH researchers apply the synthesis of DNA molecules, an established chemical research method frequently employed over many years. It is traditionally used to produce a precisely defined DNA sequence. In this case, however, the research team built DNA molecules with 64 building block positions, in which one of the four DNA bases A, C, G and T was randomly located at each position. The scientists achieved this by using a mixture of the four building blocks, rather than just one, at every step of the synthesis.
As a result, a relatively simple synthesis produced a combination of approximately three quadrillion individual molecules. The scientists subsequently used an effective method to determine the DNA sequence of five million of these molecules. This resulted in 12 megabytes of data, which the researchers stored as zeros and ones on a computer.
[...] However, an analysis showed that the distribution of the four building blocks A, C, G and T was not completely even. Either the intricacies of nature or the synthesis method deployed led to the bases G and T being integrated more frequently in the molecules than A and C. Nonetheless, the scientists were able to correct this bias with a simple algorithm, thereby generating perfect random numbers.
Journal Reference:
Linda C. Meiser, Julian Koch, Philipp L. Antkowiak, et al. DNA synthesis for true random number generation [open], Nature Communications (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19757-y)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday November 21 2020, @08:59AM (5 children)
It's just a permutation of the old question "Can an all-powerful God create a stone that He cannot lift?
Or in more modern terms, can God throw the dice behind the couch?
Of course, even your ideal Atheist scientist cannot help but run up against Gödel's second incompleteness theorem which shows that no system may be completely understood within itself. In other words, we can never fully understand the entire Universe without leaving that universe (which is in itself a philosophical can of worms, or is that a tangly ball of noodly appendages?).
In other words, there are so many places where taking our current understanding of things to a natural conclusion leads to broken math and broken logic that adding one more makes no practical difference. I don't actually believe that it's turtles all the way down, I just believe that the appearance of that sort of result just means we don't know enough yet.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2020, @10:00AM (4 children)
That's not what Gödel's incompleteness theorems say. At a minimum, you've gone astray because it only only applies to logical systems that can model a certain amount of arithmetic. If your system falls below that level or fails to meet the other requirements, then it can be done just fine. Gödel's completeness theorem even proves that you can for certain systems.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 22 2020, @11:02AM (3 children)
I think the entire universe more than meets the criteria. If we cannot prove the completeness or consistency of mathematics, which exists within the Universe, our understanding of the universe is necessarily incomplete.
There will always exist something where we ask "Is this always so or might there be an exception?" : dunno
or "Why is this inevitably so?" : dunno.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2020, @12:02AM (2 children)
But the Universe itself may (most likely) not meet that criteria, ala dialetheia or HOL, etc. And we may be able to prove consistency of mathematics even if it did, ala Gentzen or Wright etc. Knowledge we cannot obtain due to our position in the Universe, some incredulity inherent in the species, a strong form of relationism, or that is not actualized within the Universe does not change the Universe itself, either. It existed long before us and will continue without us just fine, whether we know about it or not. But again, the latter part has nothing to do with Gödel either.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 23 2020, @01:54AM (1 child)
Us existing is certainly necessary to us understanding the whole Universe, yes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2020, @03:11AM
It is necessary to us understanding the whole Universe, but not whether the Universe is understandable.