On Feb 11, 7:32 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > 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
> But I don't see any way to disprove NLHVs.

That's hardly an impossibility proof

>  Within non-relativistic QM
> Bohm showed that a NLHV interpretation is equivalent to standard QM.  

However, that is disputed

> Goldstein et al claim to be able to extend this to relativistic QFT,
> although I haven't read their papers.
> Everett's MWI a deterministic theory.

Often stated, but misleading. It doesn't require any
additional information for everything to happen deterministically,
but it does for one thing to happen deterministically and another not.

Specifically, MWI does not retain counterfactual definitiness.

> 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.
> Brent

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