On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote:
But I don't see any way to disprove NLHVs. Within non-relativistic QM
Bohm showed that a NLHV interpretation is equivalent to standard QM.
Goldstein et al claim to be able to extend this to relativistic QFT,
although I haven't read their papers.
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>
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?
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
Everett's MWI a deterministic theory. Do you regard it as having NLHVs
since it exists in Hilbert space?
I think it comes down to which model you want to apply - at least until
there is some further guidance from experiment.
From a purely mathematical viewpoint, there is no way to show that a
finite string of symbols is truly random. All experimental results are
finite - hence my "simplistic" comment.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at