Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The pseudo-randomness is key here. It means that you've essentially put forth a hidden variable theory, since we can completely characterize the expected measurements of various quantities (since the pseudo-random generator is presumably deterministic.) This might be acceptable, but thanks to Bell's theorem it has consequences about what your theory needs to look like, and thus might run into problems with reality. For this, and some other reasons (the computer that's going to classically simulate our QM universe is going to be mind-bogglingly huge compared to our universe itself), I don't think that the prospect of QM all being a deterministic simulation (some kind of brain-in-vat exercise writ large) is terribly realistic. I guess that's not your point, but it does at least suggest that there is strong evidence for inherent randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what 'hidden variable' means but assumed it meant that the information that will decise the up/down spin is 'hidden' within the particle (or at least in the locality of the particle). If so the simulation is not an example of hidden variableness.

It is consistent with Bells inequalities as I understand it. Bell' idea is to show that either QM is random or locality is violated. The simulation violates locality (in a way consistent with the results of relativity) and so isn't bothered by bells result.

As for whether its realistic or not, thats beside the point here. The simulation is enough to prove that QM is consistent with determinism. [I don't think simulation or brain in the vat is realstic either but that doesn't mean that the universe we observe isn't entirely natural but a bit wierder than we currently think]

[Edit; Although I talk like I'm certain that's just my style (or lack of it). I originally posed this idea as a question and to the limits of my understanding it seems right. If someone can explain why QM isn't equivalent to late evaluation then I'd be very interested because that's how I currently think of QM]

chez