RE: Conventional QTI = False

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:08:41 +1200

I think we're talking at different levels. You claim SWE is emergent from a computational layer BENEATH it - I think that's fine. I
was objecting to the primacy of a computational layer which runs on top of the SWE (i.e. physical computers like the one I'm typing
on). But I guess I misunderstood.

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2001 4:33 a.m.
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: Conventional QTI = False
>
>
> Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
> >I think the only constraint is that the extensions should be
> physically
> >possible, i.e. possible outcomes of the schrodinger wave
> >equation. If those are also logical outcomes then fine, but
> the SWE is the
> >constraining factor.
>
> Why?
>
> You postulate physicalism. Show me your theory of mind, please.
> By UDA it cannot be computationalist.
> With comp it can be argued that the constraining factors are
> only logico-arithmetical. The SWE should be emerging.
> We must explain why quantum computation described by "e^iH"
> seems, from the point of view of the observer, to supersede
> classical computation described by "H".
>
> Bruno
Received on Sun Sep 16 2001 - 19:06:23 PDT