>In a sense, whether a given mechanism provides entropy is a matter of “this or that expert said that it does”; impossibility of accurate simulation comes from

>In a sense, whether a given mechanism provides entropy is a matter of “this or that expert said that it does”; impossibility of accurate simulation comes from physics, specifically quantum mechanics, so the entropy pool estimator is based on a fair amount of trust in physicists such as Feynman or Bohr (but not Einstein, for that matter). But the entropy depletion is an assertion that cryptographers such as Shamir cannot be equally trusted. Well yeah, we have much more reason to believe our physical laws represent something about reality than to think our cryptographic primitives are unbreakable. Where's the analogue of Bell's theorem for cryptography?