>This makes zero sense. Choices matter. Not in models that don't contain them. >We use pseudorandom number generators precisely because it is impossible to ha

>This makes zero sense. Choices matter. Not in models that don't contain them. >We use pseudorandom number generators precisely because it is impossible to have true randomness within a deterministic system. "Nondeterminism" and "true randomness" can be modeled in deterministic systems. Your ability to deterministically construct those notions in your own brain is a weak proof of that. If I say "elephant", and you imagine an elephant, then you've modeled an elephant. You have not created an elephant, I'm not claiming you will, and I'm not claiming that you will get true randomness from a deterministic machine. I'm saying you can model it, and thus reason about it. >I think you're alluding to some sort of multiverse theory. I am not. I am alluding to parallelism being a computational feature which usefully serves as a model of nondeterministic processes. I'm not talking about choices, meaningless or otherwise, I'm talking about modeling the concept that is invoked by your use of the word "nondeterminism." (Though you can also model nondeterministic choices as parallel thunks.) My point is that for every nondeterministic function, there exists a deterministic function which will produce exactly the same outputs. Thus one cannot argue that nondeterminism offers any additional capabilities (beyond computational efficiency.) This is effectively the same as saying that every parallel computation can be executed sequentially, or that every strict computation can be computed lazily.