Stephen, In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.
This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that 'everything is its computation only, and the computation is the thing'. I have no problem with that, it's a good way to express it..... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:03:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > > Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter > and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did > you have with this idea? > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Brent, > > What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality > math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because > events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. > only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality > math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations > mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, > not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations > somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes > an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with > reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual > reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality > and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. > > Edgar > > > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > > > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific > decoherence results > > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no > such problem in > > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your > interpretations or choosing > > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and > produces predictable > > results... > > But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the > measured values are > random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only > produces one of the > probable values. So the question is how do you get from the > probabilities, which is what > QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just > says what do you > expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every > time with > different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated > experiences. > > What do you say? > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit > https://groups<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > > ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
