Le 08-févr.-06, à 22:55, Russell Standish a écrit :

## Advertising

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:17:05PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:Hi,we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount ofinformation...so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite,hencedigitalisable at the level of information that you could know abouttheobject, so I don't see why a radioactive source and the click patternon ageiger counter cannot be simulated... You could object randomness, butgenerating (and executing) all program by the UD will generate all"random"string as well. Regards, QuentinA UD can generate the set of all random strings, but it still needs to select a single string to be equivalent to a Geiger counter. AFAIK, this is impossible for a Turing machine ...

`Not if the UD (which is a turing machine) copies you each time it`

`generates one bit of the random strings.`

`This is the idea of getting the quantum indeterminacy as a particular`

`case of the comp first person indeterminacy. I think it is the idea of`

`Everett and everything-like theories.`

but rather trivial from a real, physical machine.

`Accepting not only weak-materialism (existence of primitive matter) and`

`the quantum theory that is accepting the existence of primitive matter`

`and that it obeys to the quantum. But this is the kind of things we are`

`trying to explain (from simpler things, like numbers and/or comp etc.).`

I can do it on my computer, for example, showing it to be capable of more than a Turing machine.

`Only if your computer is interfaced with a quantum generator (assuming`

`the quantum theory).`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/