<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - The Difficulty of Being Random</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>The Difficulty of Being Random</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&amp;apos;t worry, dhw, I haven&amp;apos;t forgotten our Natural Selection thread... but this feeds into it...-Working within Computer Science (and studying for a professional exam this wednesday, hence my absence here) Something I meant to talk about a couple years back suddenly sprung into my head. -It&amp;apos;s extremely difficult to design for pure randomness with computers.  The best we can do (so far) is approximation.-So... what does that potentially tell you about an intelligent creator?  That Randomness itself, could very well BE the design.   -[But how would you ever know...?]-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation">&amp;quot;Several computational methods for random number generation exist, but often fall short of the goal of true randomness &amp;#226;&amp;#128;&amp;#148; though they may meet, with varying success, some of the statistical tests for randomness intended to measure how unpredictable their results are (that is, to what degree their patterns are discernible).&amp;quot; </a>-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;[EDITED]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7130</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7130</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Evolution</category><dc:creator>xeno6696</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
