Either one will be fine, since while it would be hard to avoid going "asdf" a few times, it will not be hard to avoid going "asdfgherlanaienwnfuxcbebwnmwifvnnmgke" more than once, I think. I added the bit about just using normal language when I realized it would work just as well because of the reduction from base 27 (letters + space) to base 2 completely removes any pattern which existed in base 27.
Originally Posted by laserlight
It is deductive as opposed to inductive/empirical, but even in science many or most "ideas" are: just that you may want to prove something empirically as well. In this case, I think that will be unnecessary because it could be proven mathematically -- generally in science, mathematical (ie, deductive) proof I think is taken to be as good or better than empirical proof (which you could prove this empirically as well).
I think that this is where my doubt lies: is this assertion a self-evident statement of fact, or is it just an unproven hypothesis?
IMO, a sane and rational person should not have to do either one here unless they are irrationally paranoid (IMO, I am baffled this provoked a discussion -- it seems like discussing "Could 2+2 really be 4, or might it be something else?"). It is on a level with saying, because I have never played the lottery, I am uncertain that the odds are really against me. No. Simple contemplation indicates this, even if you too lazy to "explicitly demonstrate it mathematically".
Any way. Apply it to the dictionary. Apply it to this thread. Neither one will contain any statistically meaningful frequency of predicable patterns. 2+2=4.
But let's move on: suppose I wanted to test this statement. What do you propose is the best way for me to obtain the data and convert it to a byte array such that it can be checked with a statistical test of randomness?
That hinges on your acceptance of the irreducibility of the Uncertainty Principle, I would guess. Einstein, eg, did not and felt that the "Uncertainty Principle" had a limited lifespan, ie, all events are ultimately determinate. I do not have enough interest in physics to say whether the Uncertainty Principle is accepted pragmatically or if there is some real evidence to prove that the location of an electron really is indeterminate from one moment to the next -- but I would guess the former ("uncertainty" is just accepted pragmaticlly), so I am banking a little bit that in the future all events on an atomic level could be predicted. But that is kind of red herringish, I believe what's really important there is that:
If I remember correctly, this is debatable, and physicists tend to be in favour of the proposition that it is the case that it is physically impossible to make such a prediction, regardless of the technical knowledge and apparatus available.
To clarify: even if the entire sequence of data is based on 100% predicable phenomenon, without the phenomenon, you could not say (based on a few seconds of decay data) what happened during the rest of the time because you do not have the matter (which decayed, producing the data) to examine. In the same way, given part of the bit sequence created from a text, you could not say what the rest of the text was, so you certainly could not say what the rest of the bit sequence was. The same few seconds of decay data could probably be produced by quite different decay events, just like the same sequence of bits could be produced by very different texts. The conversion is highly reductive and therefore irreversible.
even given predictability, the event which generated the sequence (an actual decay event) cannot be "deduced" or assumed like: if I have a segment of the data, I can tell you the rest of it without witnessing the event. Nope! The matter is gone! The same thing: given a segment of the 1 and 0 from a string, I can tell you the rest of the string. Nope! The "matter" is gone!
Anyway, sorry if I have been a bit rude or curt to anyone, but I kind of think that is okay when "discussing" whether 2+2 equals 4. Most people would not entertain that for very long before they assert that:
2) You are silly to believe anything else. Stop it, now.