In sci.math message <rubrum-0653B8.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:43:20, Michael Press <email@example.com> posted:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Herman Rubin <email@example.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-12-15, Michael Press <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> > In article <OjcVDZPLshyQFw5g@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, >> > Dr J R Stockton <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >> In sci.math message <rubrum-471E53.firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> >> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:46:23, Michael Press <email@example.com> posted: >> >> >> >> >I do not see how quantum effects can be used to generate >> >> >random sequences. >> >> >> Radioactive decay is due to quantum effects, and there is a fixed >> >> probability for each atom to decay in the next time interval. >> >> > From what does the unpredictability of radioactive decay arise? >> >> From the assumption that the atoms decay in a random manner. This >> gives unpredictability. The other quantum assumptions say that >> the decays of the various atoms are independent, and that the >> decay is at an exponential rate.
I think the last bit is a consequence in agreement with observation, rather than an assumption. Ask me long enough ago, and I could in principle raise the matter with PAMD himself.
>> The msin assumption in this is that the probability that an >> atom which has not decayed by time T will still have a probability >> of decay between T and U which is independent of anything which has >> happened before time T, and only depends on U-T.
>I am asking for the basis of the unpredictability >in physical theory. Assuming it is random is to >beg the question. > >I hold that the wave theory of matter does not >predict random occurrences.
Little can be done about ignorance of such profundity. You reject the mainstream physics of the last 85 years or thereabouts.