- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:30:27 EST

In a message dated 01/14/2000 1:48:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

R.Standish.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> Your first sentence is complete codswallop, and your second sentence
*

*> is bizarre. Prove it!
*

*>
*

*> >
*

*> > In a message dated 01/13/2000 5:58:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
*

*> > R.Standish.domain.name.hidden writes:
*

*> >
*

*> > > Who say's the world is quantized?
*

*> >
*

*> > If the world was not quantized the comp hypothesis would not hold. In
*

fact,

*>
*

*> > It would be impossible for physical constants to have any definite
*

value,

*> > since there would not be any reference to anchor them with.
*

*> >
*

*> > George Levy
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*>
*

I looked up codswallop in the dictionnary and I was very surprised to find

that it is a recent British word coined around 1963. It means "nonsense."

OK. This is your opinion.

First sentence: The comp hypothesis depends on Turing Machines which are

inherently discrete. A continuous universe would not by emulable by a Turing

Machine. Read Bruno's latest post. He has a much better grasp of this issue

then me.

Second sentence: To prove that if physical constants are to take any definite

value, the universe must be quantized.

Let us say that there exist a TOE based on one single physical constant X

(for example Planck's constant). Without loss of generality, we can say that

the value of X is 1, since there is no other constant to compare it to.

Assuming that a Turing machine is used to apply this TOE to solve poblem and

calculate any quantity in the world then any quantitiy derived from this TOE

would have to belong to the set of integers -- including space time and

energy.

We can extend this reasonning to TOE's that include n arbitrary physical

constants.

George Levy

Received on Sat Jan 15 2000 - 00:32:26 PST

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:30:27 EST

In a message dated 01/14/2000 1:48:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

R.Standish.domain.name.hidden writes:

fact,

value,

I looked up codswallop in the dictionnary and I was very surprised to find

that it is a recent British word coined around 1963. It means "nonsense."

OK. This is your opinion.

First sentence: The comp hypothesis depends on Turing Machines which are

inherently discrete. A continuous universe would not by emulable by a Turing

Machine. Read Bruno's latest post. He has a much better grasp of this issue

then me.

Second sentence: To prove that if physical constants are to take any definite

value, the universe must be quantized.

Let us say that there exist a TOE based on one single physical constant X

(for example Planck's constant). Without loss of generality, we can say that

the value of X is 1, since there is no other constant to compare it to.

Assuming that a Turing machine is used to apply this TOE to solve poblem and

calculate any quantity in the world then any quantitiy derived from this TOE

would have to belong to the set of integers -- including space time and

energy.

We can extend this reasonning to TOE's that include n arbitrary physical

constants.

George Levy

Received on Sat Jan 15 2000 - 00:32:26 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*