On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
Oh I see! I think that's of philosophical taste as well. I don't think everybody would agree with you. Specially if you poll physicists like those that constructed the standard model of computation! We cannot ask Feynman, but I actually asked Deutsch. He does not only think QM is our most basic physical reality (he thinks math and computer science lie in quantum mechanics), but he even takes quite seriously his theory of parallel universes! and he is not alone. Speaking by myself, I would agree with you, but I think we would need to relativize the concept of agreement. I don't think QM is just another model of merely mathematical value to make finite predictions. I think physical models say something about our physical reality. If you deny QM as part of our physical reality then I guess you deny any other physical model. I wonder then what is left to you. You perhaps would embrace total skepticism, perhaps even solipsism. Current trends have moved from there to a more relativized positions, where models are considered so, models, but still with some value as part of our actual physical reality (just as Newtonian physics is not just completely wrong after General Relativity since it still describes a huge part of our physical reality). At the end, even if you claim a Platonic physical reality to which we have no access at all, not even through our best explanations in the way of models, the world is either quantum or not (as we have defined the theory), and as long as it remains as our best explanation of a the phenomena that characterizes one has to face it to other models describing other aspects or models of our best known physical reality. It is not clear to me how you would deny the physical reality of QM but defend the theory of computability or algorithmic information theory as if they were more basic than QM. If we take as equally basic QM and AIT, even in a practical sense, there are incompatibilities in essence. QM cannot be said as Turing computable, and AIT cannot posit the in-existence of non-deterministic randomness specially when QM says something else. I am more in the side of AIT but I think the question is open, is interesting (both philosophically and scientific) and not trivial at all. >>> 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 ... > There are people that think that quantum randomness is actually the source of the complexity we see in the universe [Bennett, Lloyd]. Even when I do not agree with them (since AIT does not require non-deterministic randomness) I think it is not that trivial since even researchers think they contribute in some fundamental (not only philosophical) way. > -- 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Hector Zenil http://www.mathrix.org ------------------------------------------- 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
