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 <meeke...@dslextreme.com <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:

    On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote:


        On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com
        <mailto: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
                <mailto: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
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

--
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