# Re: Is the universe computable?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:18:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Natural numbers are not representation. They are the one represented,
> for exemples by infosystems, or pebbles, animals etc.

"They are the one represented" is a yet another assertion. I would be more
inclined to listen, if you'd show how a group of pebbles can conduct a
measurement. (Counting is a measurement).

> It seems to me you confuse the thing abstract immaterial numbers,
> and the things which represent them.

If I'd kill you, you'd have no chance of thinking that thought. If I killed
all animals capable of counting, "abstract immaterial numbers" would become
exactly that: immaterial.

> Pebbles can't count themselves, obviously. But it is not because
> pebbles can't count that two pebbles give an even number of pebbles.
> Electron cannot solve schroedinger equation (only a physicist can do that),
> nevertheless electron cannot not follow it (supposing QM).

The universe does what it does, it certainly doesn't solve equations. People
solve equations, when approximating what universe does. As such, QM is a fair
approximation; it has no further reality beyond that.

H\psi=E\psi in absence of context is just as meaningless as 2+2=4.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net


pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature