It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality etc.
here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it
all all boils down to this:
Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would generate
an observer who would subjectively perceive his virtual world to be similar
to the world we live in (which is well described by the standard model and
The quantum fields are represented in some way by the states of the
transistors of the computer. The way the computer evolves from one state to
the next, of course, doesn't violate ''our laws of physics''. It may be the
case that the way the transistors are manipulated by the computer when
interpreted in terms of the quantum fields in the ''virtual world'' would
violate the laws of physics of that world. But this is irrelevant, because
the observer cannot violate the laws of physics in his world. Also, if you
believe that ''mathematical existence= physical existence'', then you assume
that we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a
machine that executes it.
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 09:34 PM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
> Hi Bruno,
> From the bottom....
> About the links: I know them. Thanks anyway.
> Maye you know the links but you surely have not read what they point
> to otherwise
> you would not go on claiming that there are no NON-computable
> processes in the
> physical world! You probably also have heard of books such of that by
> Pour-El and
> Richards which catalogue a good number of them from both classical and
> physics but declined to read them as they don't agree with your
> The case of the general NON-computability of the results of individual
> is somewhat more grievious than all of these because, not only QM does
> not in general
> compute them (but computes their statistical distributions quite
> generally) but because we
> know that NO other conceivable local theory does compute them and
> no other such theory computes their distribution as well as QM! In
> fact the only
> other "mechanistic" (non-local) theories that can claim to compute
> anything like the QM distibutions
> must contain "faster-than-light" propagations and other features that
> violate other
> well supported physical theories! This later result was proved by
> George Svetlichny
> but I am sure you know the link so I need not include it.
> I wrote "compute" above where I would normaly write "predict" because
> physical theories
> are really analogue algorithms for computing predictions. Turing
> machines are very general
> (but very slow and ineficient) ways of discretizing and encoding such
> algorithms and
> implementing them in special physical systems called digital computers
> to generate
> approximate predictions. This means that no UTM, no UD or UDA or any
> model of
> digital computation (or any physical, calssical or quantum computer by
> that matter)
> that is CT equivalent to them, can compute what QM cannot!
> So if your UDA produces a "huge amount of non-locality" (whatever that
> means) I can only understand that as meaning that it computes
> (predicts) a whole lot less
> than QM and so, why should I care for it anyway?
> I know this sounds "didatic" but so do you when you run out
> of arguments and send people to your papers...
> Godfrey Kurtz
> (New Brunswick, NJ)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: everything-List List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:10:17 +0200
> Subject: Re: subjective reality
> Hi Godfrey,
> I answer some relevant (imo) comments in one post (for avoiding
> mailbox abuse).
> For your others paragraphs, I can only suggest you study the UDA
> On 01 Sep 2005, at 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How does this affect Bruno's UDA? As far as I can tell, steps 1-6 go
> through as before, but after that the conclusions are not so clear.
> > But isn't step 1 the YD?
> Good remark! (And Russell's answer does not really answers).
> Glad to see you are going from step 0 (YD hypothesis mainly) to step 1
> (classical teleportation). What about step 2?
> CF: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf
> Explanation here:
> Tsk, tsk Bruno! Now you are getting petty and condescending. I take it
> as a sign that this exchange as lasted longer
> than it should...
> > I would leave the "soul" out of my statements. The soul-body problem
> was solved long time ago.
> ? What is the solution?
> The body perishes, the soul (and the damnation) is eternal! What else?
> > Sorry, but I don't follow here! You get physics but you loose
> theology!!! Why do you need the theology?
> Is not comp, through the YD, not already a hope in a form of
> For sure! If not a last grip on the myth for immortality. You tell me.
> I think we can have a scientific attitude (modesty, right of
> questioning hypotheses, methodological agnosticism) in the fundamental
> matter. I'm just interested in "theology" and particularly in
> "cosmogony": where and why information, sensations, space and time come
> Sounds very much like what the proponents of the " Theory of
> Intelligent Design" argue in this country. The question seems
> innocent enough but what is being asked is really whether one can
> disguise religious doctrine with just enough scientific verbiage to
> make it pass for a rival theory and fit it in school books? As I
> suggested before, that seems to be your real
> calling, "father" Bruno (;-)
> > I guess you are right. I think I am more confused about what you are
> saying than when we started this exchange.
> It is all normal. I see you don't grasp the point. More in my answer
> to Lee Corbin, about "computationalism".
> Well I read your answer to Lee and it cleared my confusion, thanks!
> You are indeed in a solo last crusade to
> save the COMPutationalist avatar with its promise of salvation,
> reincarnation and immortality! The more positive
> and pathetic aspect of it, as I see it, is that, if you are right and
> have indeed proven that the only way that
> COMP can be true is if physical world DOES NOT exist, than you
> produced one the best indictments of COMP
> I have ever heard! Good enough for me! I kind of suspected it but it
> is good to have a proof.
> Best regards,
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.