Randomness is a measure of intelligence. The greater one’s intelligence, the less randomness there is (to it).
While I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, you may wanna rephrase the above sentence (it sounds too general, and is a terrible statement when taken out of context).
The point I’m trying to make is that you can have a low intelligence person/animal/machine/system, which can perceive very little randomness. Therefore, this relation doesn’t hold out on either end of the spectrum. There is very little “randomness” to an entity (read as “perceived by”) in blissful ignorance, and there is very little randomness to a “sufficiently advanced intelligence”.
Furthermore, this isn’t something that happens only in extreme cases. It’s a pattern that can be seen at many levels in many many forms.
It kind of renders the whole point moot. However, I do concede that for a given set of data, within a fixed paradigm, the rule does have some applicability.
While I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, you may wanna rephrase the above sentence (it sounds too general, and is a terrible statement when taken out of context).
The point I’m trying to make is that you can have a low intelligence person/animal/machine/system, which can perceive very little randomness. Therefore, this relation doesn’t hold out on either end of the spectrum. There is very little “randomness” to an entity (read as “perceived by”) in blissful ignorance, and there is very little randomness to a “sufficiently advanced intelligence”.
Furthermore, this isn’t something that happens only in extreme cases. It’s a pattern that can be seen at many levels in many many forms.
It kind of renders the whole point moot. However, I do concede that for a given set of data, within a fixed paradigm, the rule does have some applicability.