On 2/13/2011 3:29 PM, John Mikes wrote:
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
Not really. QM makes stochastic predictions, yet it is extremely good
at making useful predictions. I think there is a misconception that
random="anything goes".
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.
I don't think it's so ridiculous since in fact people have reasoned like
that in the past (and some still do, e.g. Pat Robertson). But it was to
make the point that some kinds of reasoning don't lend themselves to
useful application because they lack predictive power.
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).
Sure. There's reasoning by analolgy, simple curve-fitting
extrapolation, gut feeling,... It's just that we'd like to have a way
of making precise predictions that every can agree are the predictions -
and that implies an algorithm.
Brent
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
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 [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.
--
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.
