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

From: Saibal Mitra <smitra.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:01:34 +0200

George Levy wrote:

*>
*

*>
*

*> juergen.domain.name.hidden wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite
*

*> > nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes a
*

*> > short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts. The
*

*> > n-th pseudorandom event of history h is based on q's n-th output bit
*

*> > q(n) which is initialized by 0 and set to 1 as soon as the n-th element
*

*> > of an ordered list of all possible program prefixes halts. Whenever q
*

*> > modifies some q(n) that was already used in the previous computation of
*

*> > h, p appropriately recomputes h since the n-th pseudorandom event.
*

*> >
*

*> > Such a virtual reality or universe is perfectly well-defined.
*

*>
*

*> Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum randomness
*

*> cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have to move beyond
*

*> realism......to get a model of objective reality we must first develop a
*

*> model of consciousness.
*

*>
*

*> George
*

I disagree. Hidden variables are indeed excluded, but that doesn't mean that

deterministic models proposed by Jürgen or 't Hooft are in conflict with

Bell's theorem. In the case of the model proposed by 't Hooft, you have a

universe that is very chaotic. Quantum mechanics arises in a statistical

description of the theory. Particles such as electrons, photons etc. don't

describe the degrees of freedom of the original deterministic theory, but

rather they arise only in the statistical description of this theory. In

other words: Mach was right in not believing that atoms exist.

In the case of the two slits experiment,

a hidden variable theory would tell you through what particular slit an

elecron travelled, and this is not possible. Okay, but does the electron

exist in the first place? I think not. The electron is just a mathematical

tool that allows you to calculate probabilities and is unphysical, just like

virtual particles and ghosts in Feynman diagrams. Why believe in electrons,

but not in the Fadeev-Popov ghost?

Saibal

Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 03:05:55 PDT

Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:01:34 +0200

George Levy wrote:

I disagree. Hidden variables are indeed excluded, but that doesn't mean that

deterministic models proposed by Jürgen or 't Hooft are in conflict with

Bell's theorem. In the case of the model proposed by 't Hooft, you have a

universe that is very chaotic. Quantum mechanics arises in a statistical

description of the theory. Particles such as electrons, photons etc. don't

describe the degrees of freedom of the original deterministic theory, but

rather they arise only in the statistical description of this theory. In

other words: Mach was right in not believing that atoms exist.

In the case of the two slits experiment,

a hidden variable theory would tell you through what particular slit an

elecron travelled, and this is not possible. Okay, but does the electron

exist in the first place? I think not. The electron is just a mathematical

tool that allows you to calculate probabilities and is unphysical, just like

virtual particles and ghosts in Feynman diagrams. Why believe in electrons,

but not in the Fadeev-Popov ghost?

Saibal

Received on Sat May 05 2001 - 03:05:55 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*