Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2545

Re: The halting problem revisited

From	Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: The halting problem revisited
Date	2011-03-29 11:39 -0400
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<imsuev$v96$2@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <imr30v$vo7$1@dont-email.me> <randomness-20110329010322@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <8vd51lFlq1U1@mid.individual.net> <imsh0v$11t$1@speranza.aioe.org> <8ve17fFto9U1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

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<Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> 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.

Nothing is determined but that nothing is determined.

-- 
Lew
I am who am.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-29 07:49 -0400
  Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 13:22 +0100
    Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-29 08:35 -0400
    Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-29 11:39 -0400
      Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 16:55 +0100
        Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-29 11:59 -0400
          Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 17:18 +0100
  Re: The halting problem revisited Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-03-31 13:15 +1300
    Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:36 -0400

csiph-web