HI, > "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the > values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for > instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. That is, the more > precisely one variable is known, the less precisely the other is known. THIS > IS NOT A STATEMENT ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF A RESEARCHER'S ABILITY TO > MEASURE PARTICULAR QUANTITIES OF A SYSTEM, BUT RATHER ABOUT THE NATURE OF > THE SYSTEM ITSELF." (emphasis added.) > > > > I am sure you know more about quantum mechanics than I do. But I have heard > many say the uncertainty controls limits not just on scientific measurement, > but the amount of information different parts of reality can have about each > other when computing in response to each other. Perhaps such theories are > wrong, but they are not without support in the field.
Yeah, the interpretation of quantum theory is certainly contentious and there are multiple conflicting views... However, regarding quantum computing, it is universally agreed that the class of quantum computable functions is identical to the class of classically Turing computable functions. > With regard to the statement "science can never provide evidence in favor of > infinite mechanisms" I > though you were saying there was no way the human mind could fully represent > or fully understand > an infinite mechanism --- which I agree with. No, I was not saying that "there was no way the human mind could fully represent or fully understand an infinite mechanism" What I argued is that **scientific data** can never convincingly be used to argue in favor of an infinite mechanism, due to the intrinsically finite nature of scientific data. This says **nothing** about any intrinsic limitations on the "human mind" ... unless one adds the axiom that the human mind must be entirely comprehensible via science ... which seems an unnecessary assumption to make > In fact, it is not clear that this is the case, if you use "provide > evidence" considerably more loosely than "provide proof" for. Until the > advent of quantum mechanics and/or the theory of the expanding universe, > based in part on observations and in part intuitions derived from them, many > people felt the universe was infinitely continuous and/or of infinite extent > in space and time. I agree you would probably never be able to prove > infinite realities, but the mind is capable of conceiving of them, and of > seeing evidence that might suggest to some their existence, such as was > suggested to Einstein, who for many years I have been told believed in a > universe that was infinite in time. well, my argument implies that you can never use science to prove that "the mind is capable of conceiving of infinite realities" This may be true in some other sense, but I argue, not in a scientific sense... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
