On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>  
> > wrote:
> >> Physical laws aren't "out there".  They are models we invent.  So of course
> >> we like to invent algorithmic ones because they are more usable.  People
> >> used to invent non-algorithmic ones, like "Zeus does that when he's angry."
> >> but they were hard to apply.  QM is entirely algorithmic since it includes
> >> inherent randomness.  However this is probably not important for the
> >> function of brains.
> > Did you mean to say QM is *not* entirely algorithmic?
> Right.
> > If randomness is
> > important in the brain it is then a further step to show that true
> > randomness, rather than pseudorandomness, is necessary.
> Of course any finite amount of true randomness can be reproduced by
> pseudorandomness, so the challenge to show true randomness is a mug's game.

That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either-
indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved,
that proves indeterminism

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