In a message dated 01/14/2000 1:48:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

> 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 
>  > It would be impossible for physical constants to have any definite 
>  > 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 
We can extend this reasonning to TOE's that include n arbitrary physical 

George Levy

Reply via email to