Hello Bruno,
>>> I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically
>>> described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
>>
>> Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but "naked" infinite-dimensional
>> Hilbert Space (the "everything" in QM)?
>
>
> You put the finger on a problem I have with QM. I ill make a confession:
> I don't believe QM is "really" turing universal.
> The universal quantum rotation does not generate any interesting
> computations!
Could you please elaborate a bit on the two above sentences. I am
missing a more context to understand where "really" points to. And with
the second sentence, I simply don't understand it.
> I am open, say, to the idea that quantum universality needs measurement,
> and this could only exists internally. So the "naked" infinidimensional
> Hilbert space + the universal wave (rotation, unitary transformation) is
> a simpler ontology than arithmetical truth.
> Yet, even on the vaccum, from inside its gives all the non linearities
> you need to build arithmetic ... and consciousness.
Cheers,
mirek
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jan 12 2009 - 09:37:07 PST