Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!aioe.org!news-transit.tcx.org.uk!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.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 16:55:25 +0100 Organization: Dirk Bruere at Neopax Lines: 63 Message-ID: <8vedndFt19U1@mid.individual.net> References: <8v727mF46lU1@mid.individual.net> <8vbuiaFbm7U1@mid.individual.net> <8vd51lFlq1U1@mid.individual.net> <8ve17fFto9U1@mid.individual.net> Reply-To: dirk.bruere@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net hgvypQlibW+DwNibq9weJAdg1z5tRLUZ77c5I0auXMUvGhy+k1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:vIipsipQ/CnFyeCn+hRUzHhdX1E= 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:2549 On 29/03/2011 16:39, Lew wrote: > On 03/29/2011 08:22 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> 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 > > A full model of how the state space collapses must account for Mind, > mind and consciousness, and must somehow seek to formalize whimsy. The MWI does not require mind or consciousness because there is no collapse. > Nothing is determined but that nothing is determined. I assume you are a friend of Wigners friend... -- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology