Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to
decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in?

So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind.
I am functionally against the term because it would eliminate all
logical consequence and order what we instigated for the world by
establishing "physial law" (models) and the like. Randomness arises from the
unknown parts 'joining' our models yet influencing the outcome we observe.
We can ONLY think in models - trhat is how our mind CAN work and formulate
our topicla models from ingredients *we know*. Of course our knowledge is *
partial* and all those topics are connected to more than our *yesterday's
inventory* (= our mini-solipsistic worldview-content).

Then: algorithmic.
The way our 'scientific' thinking operates. Especially since we have those
embryonic tools called: computers (*our *Turing machines) based on
algorithmic interactions. The example of Zeuss' anger is ridiculous, it was
included just to make the point. There may be other ways
of non-algorithmic reasoning which are not so preposterous (however even in
those cases it is not excluded to invent in the future new algorithmic ways
we can apply either).

As a non-physicist, I would rather keep out from the lengthy vernacular
discussions of the possible and not-so-possible pseudo-consequences of
thought-experimental oddities.
(Starting with the really ingenious EPR). D. Bohm I highly appreciate as a
philosopher.

John M





On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:32 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.  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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to