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 chaotic behavior).

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 conscious experience.


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to