On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules.
>>> I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible
>>> theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic
>>> shape of atoms is really what QM explains the most elegantly and
>>> successfully, but this is besides my point).
>>> But you are coherent: if you want materialism, you will need a non turing
>>> emulable theory of matter, and of mind.
>>> Good luck, because it needs already some amount of work to conceive
>>> something not Turing emulable in math, and in physics, it is even more
>> But QM is based on complex numbers over the reals, which are already not
>> Turing emulable.
> Has a real number ever been measured by any physicist?
> Sure. He measured one side of the right triangle to be 1cubit and the
> other side to be 1cubit and concluded that the third side was sqrt(2)cubit.
That's not an example of a physicist measuring a real number, nor is it a
real life example.
In real life the physicist would wonder to how many significant figures he
measured the sides of the triangle, and to how many significant figures he
measured the angle of the triangle. Perhaps the physicist rounded to 1
cubit when in reality it was .99999909012 cubits (or in constant flux as the
atoms jostle around).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at