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. Cheers, mirek --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
