In a message dated 01/14/2000 1:48:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

##
Advertising

> Your first sentence is complete codswallop, and your second sentence
> is bizarre. Prove it!
>
> >
> > In a message dated 01/13/2000 5:58:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > Who say's the world is quantized?
> >
> > If the world was not quantized the comp hypothesis would not hold. In
fact,
>
> > It would be impossible for physical constants to have any definite
value,
> > since there would not be any reference to anchor them with.
> >
> > George Levy
> >
> >
>
>
I looked up codswallop in the dictionnary and I was very surprised to find
that it is a recent British word coined around 1963. It means "nonsense."
OK. This is your opinion.
First sentence: The comp hypothesis depends on Turing Machines which are
inherently discrete. A continuous universe would not by emulable by a Turing
Machine. Read Bruno's latest post. He has a much better grasp of this issue
then me.
Second sentence: To prove that if physical constants are to take any definite
value, the universe must be quantized.
Let us say that there exist a TOE based on one single physical constant X
(for example Planck's constant). Without loss of generality, we can say that
the value of X is 1, since there is no other constant to compare it to.
Assuming that a Turing machine is used to apply this TOE to solve poblem and
calculate any quantity in the world then any quantitiy derived from this TOE
would have to belong to the set of integers -- including space time and
energy.
We can extend this reasonning to TOE's that include n arbitrary physical
constants.
George Levy