Hello Bruno,

>>> I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically
>>> described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
>> Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but "naked" infinite-dimensional
>> Hilbert Space (the "everything" in QM)? 
> You put the finger on a problem I have with QM. I ill make a confession:
> I don't believe QM is "really" turing universal.
> The universal quantum rotation does not generate any interesting
> computations! 

Could you please elaborate a bit on the two above sentences. I am
missing a more context to understand where "really" points to. And with
the second sentence, I simply don't understand it.

> I am open, say, to the idea that quantum universality needs measurement,
> and this could only exists internally. So the "naked" infinidimensional
> Hilbert space + the universal wave (rotation, unitary transformation) is
> a simpler ontology than arithmetical truth.
> Yet, even on the vaccum, from inside its gives all the non linearities
> you need to build arithmetic ... and consciousness.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to