Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:16:22 +0100 Organization: Dirk Bruere at Neopax Lines: 69 Message-ID: <8vfb2lFngjU1@mid.individual.net> References: <8v727mF46lU1@mid.individual.net> <8vbuiaFbm7U1@mid.individual.net> <3b57f0d5-ca93-402a-afc1-b4ae4f413f47@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: dirk.bruere@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net WS3oktw7wd5NWMpoRzUU3QyecW1a9WqQ44qvxBsDY+G2H8KC03 Cancel-Lock: sha1:kBUfF3WNJs59b1LCaN774EqIbOk= 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: <3b57f0d5-ca93-402a-afc1-b4ae4f413f47@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:2572 On 30/03/2011 00:27, Joshua Maurice wrote: > On Mar 29, 12:53 pm, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: >> Joshua Maurice writes: >>> Just because I'm marginally knowledgeable about such things, >>> let me pipe in. >> (...) >>> IIRC, there's also some discussion of whether Bell's inequality are >>> true. I'm not the most versed on it, but I think that the evidence for >>> Bell's inequality is less than foolproof. >> >> Marginally knowledgeable people are aware that >> >> every single experiment done so far (...) violates >> a Bell inequality >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments >> >> and >> >> Aspect's experiments were considered to provide >> overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's >> inequalities are violated >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect >> >> as it has to be when quantum theory is correct. > > I mispoke. I meant "Bell's Theorem" instead of "inequality". Typo. My > mistake. I meant to say that Bell's Theorem is widely upheld to be > true, although the evidence isn't foolproof. It is exactly as you > state - all performed experiments seem to violate a Bell Inequality, > which is interpreted as proving no hidden determinalistic local > variable system which can describe the results. > > As I mentioned, there are so called "loopholes" in the validity of > these experimental results, but the consensus leans towards validity. > > Let me requote what you snipped. > > On Mar 28, 6:15 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >> In message, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only states that we don't know the >>> (P)RNG of the world. :-) >> >> Bell’s inequality states otherwise. > > As I said this is untrue. Bell's Theorem, if correct, and it's widely > believed to be correct, proves that there is no /local/ > determinalistic hidden variable system consistent with observations of > quantum mechanics. However, there could be a non-local one. There > could be a non-local determinalistic hidden variable system which is > consistent with observations of quantum effects. Thus the perceived > randomness could be determinalistic. It's conceivable and consistent > that there could be a determinalistic PRNG operating in the world of > quantum mechanics. > > In short, Bell's theorem says that you have to have at least one of > the following: 1- action at a distance, aka FTL interactions, or 2- > true randomness, aka no determinalism. To a lot of physicists, both > seem rather, "unintuitive", shall I say. Such is the world of quantum > physics. You need the true randomness to prevent temporal paradox arising -- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology