On 9 June 2014 06:33, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to > prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics > is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be > incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two > theories may both be correct. >
You can't prove a theory is correct, you can only show that it passes all the available experimental (and other) tests. > > > You lost me with Turing emulable. > > > This is (almost) just a fancy way of saying that something can be run on a computer. The "almost" is because Turing envisaged an "ideal" computer for the purposes of working out results (like what can in principle be computed), so for this to be *fully* in line with Turing's ideas, the computer in question needs to be a universal one (capable of doing any possible computation) ... which all existing computers aren't, of course, because they have a finite amount of memory and disc space - but for most practical purposes I believe a real computer is a good approximation to a Turing machine, and if you allow that, if you needed to, you could always attach more storage, you would effectively have something that was a universal computer "for all practical purposes". -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
