Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!news.mind.de!bolzen.all.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: The halting problem revisited Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:22:07 +0100 Organization: Dirk Bruere at Neopax Lines: 52 Message-ID: <8ve17fFto9U1@mid.individual.net> References: <8v727mF46lU1@mid.individual.net> <8vbuiaFbm7U1@mid.individual.net> <8vd51lFlq1U1@mid.individual.net> Reply-To: dirk.bruere@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 8WMtCRRqHQLH0IP5t8ff6gBoHbE9GXGrLpufqVeRfZ04i/kIhc Cancel-Lock: sha1:nybPdcgYgrFffc0LA/9pMMMqjPM= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:2538 On 29/03/2011 12:49, javax.swing.JSnarker wrote: > On 29/03/2011 12:21 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> On 29/03/2011 00:05, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Joshua Cranmer writes: >>>> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only states that we don't know the >>>> (P)RNG of the world. >>> >>> Only since as recent as 2010 we have >>> >>> »evidence that quantum randomness is indeed >>> incomputable. That means that it could not >>> have been be generated by a computer.« >>> >>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25041/ >>> >>> »Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1004.1521: >>> >>> Experimental Evidence of Quantum Randomness >>> Incomputability« >>> >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1521 >> >> I do not see that the paper demonstrates that the process underlying QM >> randomness is not algorithmic. >> >> However, I do not believe it is algorithmic. >> QM randomness seems to be a result of asking questions for which there >> is no physical answer. > > Actually, QM randomness is a symptom of indexical uncertainty about > which exact universe you're in out of many that look identical up to a > certain point in time and then diverge, more or less. > > In fact, copies of you end up experiencing each possible universe that > has you in it, so the uncertainty is really about which *you* you are > out of many that have had thus-far-identical experiences. > > Which means the randomness is actually in data from a source external to > any computer inside the universe. But if you simulated the whole > multiverse, by just running Schrödinger's wavefunction for the initial > state forward without collapse, in that simulation would be implicit > emulations of the smaller computer, each receiving a different random > bit-string -- and all embedded in a deterministic whole. > That's what I said (in a different way)! But I agree with you that it is a plausible mechanism in the MWI context -- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology