Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!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 15:47:24 +0100 Organization: Dirk Bruere at Neopax Lines: 39 Message-ID: <8vgu3pFikcU6@mid.individual.net> References: <8v727mF46lU1@mid.individual.net> <8vbuiaFbm7U1@mid.individual.net> <3b57f0d5-ca93-402a-afc1-b4ae4f413f47@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <8vfb2lFngjU1@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: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net c7uhZWTSd4mufFq+MT9FOwVvMYcKdCDh/zKspMTM9mGv3h1iAi Cancel-Lock: sha1:j5s/Y2D662Ra8Pf/9rNoJIv8E7U= 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:2596 On 30/03/2011 12:04, Joshua Maurice wrote: > On Mar 29, 5:16 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > wrote: >> On 30/03/2011 00:27, Joshua Maurice wrote: >>> 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 > > Are you talking about how FTL from arbitrary reference frames in > general relativity is equivalent to a "go back in time" machine? Yes. > I'm fully aware. If that's what you meant, then you really ought to > have provided the context of general relativity. The context only needs to be local and hence SR suffices. > Obviously, both the theories of general relativity and quantum > mechanics are incorrect in each others's domain of utility. No modern > quantum theory is consistent with modern general relativity. If I am > correct about what you meant to say, then I think that you are wrong. > It's my understanding that the "local true random" and "non-local > determinalistic" interpretations of modern quantum mechanics are / > both/ inconsistent with general relativity, contrary to your > insinuation just now that "local true random" is closer to a Theory Of > Everything. > > Either way, way off topic segue. One or both are going to fail at some point. Maybe the answer will be determined by macroscopic QM superposition experiments ie find out *exactly* how QM turns into classical physics. -- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology