This line of argument was discussed on the everything-list a few years
ago. From memory, the conclusion was that QM uncertainty was unlikely
to be due this extra noise, but I'm not a hundred percent certain of
this. The best reference in the archives I could find of this
discussion was:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3451.html
Maybe you could do a further search and see if anything more profound
was said on the topic...
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
>
> Russell,
>
> >My personally preferred solution to this problem is described in my
> >paper "Why Occam's Razor".
>
> I agree that extra bits in the "program" would tend to appear as noise
> rather than some miracle like a fire breathing dragon. Is it then
> assumed that the magnitude of this noise is unlikely to be seen - even
> in a delicate physics experiment because tampering is so improbable, or
> is it in fact measurable, arising in the form of QM uncertainty?
>
> - David
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 21:37:13 PST