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

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:06:17 -0700

John and Hal, Bruno and all everythingers, sorry for the delay guys, I was

travelling and had lots of work. Bruno, I just scanned your post quickly. It

seems to me we are going in the right direction but I shall need time to digest

what you wrote. I shall reply to you later

Let me first reply to John and Hal because it is the shortest reply. Let's go

back to the original Juergens' post

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.
*

I replied:

*>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.
*

A purely mechanical model no matter how complicated, including random variables,

cannot replicate the results generated by Quantum mechanics + probability

theory. This is exactly what Bell's inequality implies. In fact Bell proved his

inequality using Quantum theory and probability.

Therefore, Juergens' erector (fr: meccano) set approach using pseudo-random

generators, would definitely violate Bell's inequality theorem, and would not be

phenomenally or experimentally equivalent to quantum mechanics. Some of his

(our) choices are:

1) Quantum mechanics + probability -> Bell's inequality and give up on a

mechanical hidden variable, on pseudo random generators, and more generally, on

realism.

2) Something else of power equivalent to Quantum mechanics in describing

nature....Good Luck!!! I do not believe the route to this solution is the

erector set technique. Many a 19th and early 20th century physicist has broken a

tooth on that bone!

George

jamikes wrote:

*> George, thanks for your reply, which is almost as convoluted and
*

*> hard-to-follow as was my question. You wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > I am not restricting anything. I am only saying that Juergens has to
*

*> choose
*

*> > between violating Bell's inequality theorem and all that this implies, or
*

*> not
*

*> > and all that this implies. My stand is that we shouldn't.
*

*> > George
*

*> >
*

*> So ;let me rephrase the question:
*

*> is your stand that if an imaginary universe would violate eg. Bell's
*

*> theorem, it should be excluded from consideration as a possibility,
*

*> - or -
*

*> we should rather conclude that Bell's theorem (or any other fundemntal
*

*> "human" rule) has a limited validity and does not cover every possible
*

*> universe?
*

*> John
*

Received on Fri Jun 01 2001 - 22:07:59 PDT

Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:06:17 -0700

John and Hal, Bruno and all everythingers, sorry for the delay guys, I was

travelling and had lots of work. Bruno, I just scanned your post quickly. It

seems to me we are going in the right direction but I shall need time to digest

what you wrote. I shall reply to you later

Let me first reply to John and Hal because it is the shortest reply. Let's go

back to the original Juergens' post

juergen.domain.name.hidden wrote:

I replied:

A purely mechanical model no matter how complicated, including random variables,

cannot replicate the results generated by Quantum mechanics + probability

theory. This is exactly what Bell's inequality implies. In fact Bell proved his

inequality using Quantum theory and probability.

Therefore, Juergens' erector (fr: meccano) set approach using pseudo-random

generators, would definitely violate Bell's inequality theorem, and would not be

phenomenally or experimentally equivalent to quantum mechanics. Some of his

(our) choices are:

1) Quantum mechanics + probability -> Bell's inequality and give up on a

mechanical hidden variable, on pseudo random generators, and more generally, on

realism.

2) Something else of power equivalent to Quantum mechanics in describing

nature....Good Luck!!! I do not believe the route to this solution is the

erector set technique. Many a 19th and early 20th century physicist has broken a

tooth on that bone!

George

jamikes wrote:

Received on Fri Jun 01 2001 - 22:07:59 PDT

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