On 22 Sep 2009, at 08:37, Brent Meeker wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote:
>>> *And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators
>>> worked, the spokesman replied, "Very well, thank you."*
>> :)
>> That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been invented well
>> before Bennett & Al. discovered quantum teleportation, and a priori,
>> from the vague description of how teleportation works in Star Strek,
>> we can say nothing, except that it looks like classical  
>> teleportation.
>> Actually the Heisenberg compensators, if they compensate really the
>> Heisenberg uncertainties, would make such machine impossible: you  
>> just
>> cannot compensate the Heisenberg uncertainties, unless those
>> compensators send the classical bits needed to effectuate a quantum
>> teleportation, and this would explain, retrospectively, why in star
>> strek those devices always (?) annihilate the "original"... and why
>> Star Strek did not exploit the self-duplication and
>> self-indeterminacy, unlike the movie "the prestige" for example.
>> This is not relevant for comp, note, because the "global" comp
>> indeterminacy bears on the states generated by the UD, and if quantum
>> cloning is impossible, the multiple preparation of similar states is
>> quantum possible and effectively done by the Universal Dovetailer.  
>> You
>> current quantum state is provably generated by the UD, an infinite
>> number of times, at all level of substitution.
> That raises a question which has bothered me.  Since the UD and it's
> operations and states exist in the sense of abstract mathematics, then
> the same state/calculation can only occur once - there are no  
> different
> instances of the number 2.

If this where true, comp would predict white noise in all  
circumstances. The measure on a computational states is only a  
relative measure on the computations going through that states.
It is a consequence of the structure of the phi_i that all computable  
(partial) functions are represented by infinitely many programs,  
including "stupid chains" of universal systems simulating universal  
systems. Actually there is a formidable redundancy in UD*. It is a  
deep object, unlike its Chaitin-Solovay-Kolmogorov compression.  Its  
border can be compared to the border of the Mandelbrot set, with  
everything resumed in every part, but disposed in geometrical elegant  
In the UD* stories, the number two, not just you and me, will get  
infinitely many relative incarnations, in infinitely many contexts.
Comp predicts that below our (common) substitution level, we should  
met the (sharable) comp indeterminacy, and somehow Everett QM confirms  
this. AUDA makes this more precise formally, but intuitively Everett  
physics is a lucky event for comp, even through just UDA, if I can  
say. Like Church and Gödel.



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

Reply via email to