Hi Bruno,
From the bottom....
[BM]
About the links: I know them. Thanks anyway.
[GK]
Maye you know the links but you surely have not read what they point
to otherwise
you would not go on claiming that there are no NON-computable
processes in the
physical world! You probably also have heard of books such of that by
Pour-El and
Richards which catalogue a good number of them from both classical and
quantum
physics but declined to read them as they don't agree with your
proclivities...
The case of the general NON-computability of the results of individual
measurements
is somewhat more grievious than all of these because, not only QM does
not in general
compute them (but computes their statistical distributions quite
generally) but because we
know that NO other conceivable local theory does compute them and
furthermore,
no other such theory computes their distribution as well as QM! In
fact the only
other "mechanistic" (non-local) theories that can claim to compute
anything like the QM distibutions
must contain "faster-than-light" propagations and other features that
violate other
well supported physical theories! This later result was proved by
George Svetlichny
but I am sure you know the link so I need not include it.
I wrote "compute" above where I would normaly write "predict" because
physical theories
are really analogue algorithms for computing predictions. Turing
machines are very general
(but very slow and ineficient) ways of discretizing and encoding such
algorithms and
implementing them in special physical systems called digital computers
to generate
approximate predictions. This means that no UTM, no UD or UDA or any
model of
digital computation (or any physical, calssical or quantum computer by
that matter)
that is CT equivalent to them, can compute what QM cannot!
So if your UDA produces a "huge amount of non-locality" (whatever that
means) I can only understand that as meaning that it computes
(predicts) a whole lot less
than QM and so, why should I care for it anyway?
I know this sounds "didatic" but so do you when you run out
of arguments and send people to your papers...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden
Cc: everything-List List <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:10:17 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
[BM]
Hi Godfrey,
I answer some relevant (imo) comments in one post (for avoiding
mailbox abuse).
For your others paragraphs, I can only suggest you study the UDA
theorem
On 01 Sep 2005, at 16:20, kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden wrote:
[RussellStandish]
> How does this affect Bruno's UDA? As far as I can tell, steps 1-6 go
through as before, but after that the conclusions are not so clear.
[Godfrey]
> But isn't step 1 the YD?
Good remark! (And Russell's answer does not really answers).
Glad to see you are going from step 0 (YD hypothesis mainly) to step 1
(classical teleportation). What about step 2?
CF:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf
Explanation here:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
[GK]
Tsk, tsk Bruno! Now you are getting petty and condescending. I take it
as a sign that this exchange as lasted longer
than it should...
> I would leave the "soul" out of my statements. The soul-body problem
was solved long time ago.
[BM]
? What is the solution?
[GK]
The body perishes, the soul (and the damnation) is eternal! What else?
> Sorry, but I don't follow here! You get physics but you loose
theology!!! Why do you need the theology?
[BM]
Is not comp, through the YD, not already a hope in a form of
reincarnation?
[GK]
For sure! If not a last grip on the myth for immortality. You tell me.
[BM]
I think we can have a scientific attitude (modesty, right of
questioning hypotheses, methodological agnosticism) in the fundamental
matter. I'm just interested in "theology" and particularly in
"cosmogony": where and why information, sensations, space and time come
from.
[GK]
Sounds very much like what the proponents of the " Theory of
Intelligent Design" argue in this country. The question seems
innocent enough but what is being asked is really whether one can
disguise religious doctrine with just enough scientific verbiage to
make it pass for a rival theory and fit it in school books? As I
suggested before, that seems to be your real
calling, "father" Bruno (;-)
> I guess you are right. I think I am more confused about what you are
saying than when we started this exchange.
[BM]
It is all normal. I see you don't grasp the point. More in my answer
to Lee Corbin, about "computationalism".
Bruno
[GK]
Well I read your answer to Lee and it cleared my confusion, thanks!
You are indeed in a solo last crusade to
save the COMPutationalist avatar with its promise of salvation,
reincarnation and immortality! The more positive
and pathetic aspect of it, as I see it, is that, if you are right and
have indeed proven that the only way that
COMP can be true is if physical world DOES NOT exist, than you
produced one the best indictments of COMP
I have ever heard! Good enough for me! I kind of suspected it but it
is good to have a proof.
Best regards,
-Joao
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Fri Sep 02 2005 - 15:48:36 PDT