On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply):
/ (JM):...In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos is: "I
don't know" and stochastic is sort of a random. ..."/
*BM: Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and
include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the
result of ignorance of some deeper level? *
OK. (BM = Brent Meeker, here, not me). But I agree with Brent, and a
perfect example of such intrinsic randomness is a direct consequence
of determinism in the computer science. That is what is illustrated by
the iteration of self-multiplication. Most observers, being repeatedly
duplicated into W and M, will have not only random history (like
WWMMMWMMMWWWWWMWMMWWM ...) but a majority will have incompressible
experience, in the sense of Chaitin. Self-duplication gives an example
of abrupt indeterminacy (as opposed to other long term determinist
In particular, the empiric infered QM indeterminacy confirms one of
the most startling feature of digital mechanism: that if we look below
our computationalist subtitution level , our computations (our
sub-level computations) are random.
This is a consequence of the no-cloning theorem, which in turn is a
consequence of unitary evolution of the wf. It is curious that the
deterministic process at the wf level implies randomness at the level of
With comp, determinism entaills first person and first person plural
intrinsic randomness existence.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at