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

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:17:05PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount of information... so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite, hence digitalisable at the level of information that you could know about the object, so I don't see why a radioactive source and the click pattern on a
geiger counter cannot be simulated... You could object randomness, but
generating (and executing) all program by the UD will generate all "random"
string as well.


A 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.
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).



Reply via email to