On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meeker<[email protected]> > > 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 [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.
