On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Hector Zenil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But I don't get your point at all, because the whole idea of >> "nondeterministic" randomness has nothing to do with physical >> reality... > > I don't get it. You don't think that quantum mechanics is part of our > physical reality (if it is not all of it)?
Of course it isn't -- quantum mechanics is a mathematical and conceptual model that we use in order to predict certain finite sets of finite-precision observations, based on other such sets >> true random numbers are uncomputable entities which can >> never be existed, > > you can say that either they don't exist or they do exist but that we > don't have access to them. That's a rather philosophical matter. But > scientifically QM says the latter. Sure it does: but there is an equivalent mathematical theory that explains all observations identically to QM, yet doesn't posit any uncomputable entities So, choosing to posit that these uncomputable entities exist in reality, is just a matter of aesthetic or philosophical taste ... so you can't really say they exist in reality, because they contribute nothing to the predictive power of QM ... -- 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
