This line of argument was discussed on the everything-list a few years ago. From memory, the conclusion was that QM uncertainty was unlikely to be due this extra noise, but I'm not a hundred percent certain of this. The best reference in the archives I could find of this discussion was:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3451.html Maybe you could do a further search and see if anything more profound was said on the topic... David Barrett-Lennard wrote: > > Russell, > > >My personally preferred solution to this problem is described in my > >paper "Why Occam's Razor". > > I agree that extra bits in the "program" would tend to appear as noise > rather than some miracle like a fire breathing dragon. Is it then > assumed that the magnitude of this noise is unlikely to be seen - even > in a delicate physics experiment because tampering is so improbable, or > is it in fact measurable, arising in the form of QM uncertainty? > > - David > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
