Let me first reply to John and Hal because it is the shortest reply. Let's go back to the original Juergens' post

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite

> nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes
a

> short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts.
The

> n-th pseudorandom event of history h is based on q's n-th output
bit

> q(n) which is initialized by 0 and set to 1 as soon as the n-th element

> of an ordered list of all possible program prefixes halts.
Whenever q

> modifies some q(n) that was already used in the previous computation
of

> h, p appropriately recomputes h since the n-th pseudorandom event.

>

> Such a virtual reality or universe is perfectly well-defined.

I replied:

>Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum randomness

>cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have to move beyond

>realism......to get a model of objective reality we must first develop
a

>model of consciousness.

A purely mechanical model no matter how complicated, including random
variables, cannot replicate the results generated by Quantum mechanics
+ probability theory. This is exactly what Bell's inequality implies. In
fact Bell *proved* his inequality using Quantum theory and probability.

Therefore, Juergens' erector (fr: meccano) set approach using pseudo-random generators, would definitely violate Bell's inequality theorem, and would not be phenomenally or experimentally equivalent to quantum mechanics. Some of his (our) choices are:

1) Quantum mechanics + probability -> Bell's inequality and give up on a mechanical hidden variable, on pseudo random generators, and more generally, on realism.

2) Something else of power equivalent to Quantum mechanics in describing nature....Good Luck!!! I do not believe the route to this solution is the erector set technique. Many a 19th and early 20th century physicist has broken a tooth on that bone!

George

jamikes wrote:

George, thanks for your reply, which is almost as convoluted and

hard-to-follow as was my question. You wrote:> I am not restricting anything. I am only saying that Juergens has to

choose

> between violating Bell's inequality theorem and all that this implies, or

not

> and all that this implies. My stand is that we shouldn't.

> George

>

So ;let me rephrase the question:

is your stand that if an imaginary universe would violate eg. Bell's

theorem, it should be excluded from consideration as a possibility,

- or -

we should rather conclude that Bell's theorem (or any other fundemntal

"human" rule) has a limited validity and does not cover every possible

universe?

John