On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:09:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Jul 2018, at 15:09, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of > Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can > halt or not. This is a form of the Berry paradox and similar "unnameable > number" results similar to Cantor diagonalization. Such a thing really does > not exist. > > > > Indeed. But I do not see the relevance here. It means only that we cannot > recognise a program from its behaviour in general, still less from its > code. But everyone knows who he is locally, and that is only what we need > to get the first person duplication when done (by definition/assumption) at > the right level. That explains the “many-world” internal interpretation in > arithmetic or Turing equivalent. > > Bruno >
This was in response to something Clark wrote. When it comes to interpretations I think Wittgenstein is advised with a paraphrased quote that which we can't speak we pass over in silence. I think it best to think according to quantum spectra with some "Gödel numbering" between quantum numbers and solutions to Diophantine equations. John Bell proved that any objective theory giving experimental predictions identical to those of quantum theory is necessarily nonlocal. Complete nonlocality would eventually encompass everything in the universe, including ourselves, giving rise to bizarre self-referential logical truths. The latter are not usually considered to be in the realm of physics. Experimental outcomes are never considered with respect to such self-referential loops. However, this is because as with ψ-epistemic interpretations the quantum and classical worlds are considered distinct. Heisenberg however showed there is a problem with understanding the cut between the two. This leads to Schödinger's cat problem. MWI is ψ-ontic, and in effect invokes nonlocal variables that are the other worlds. Nonlocality in ψ-ontic interpretations are instead of being a formal feature of QM as described topologically by quotient groups and spaces is rather laden down with hidden variables. These problems may be due to the fact we avoid looking at nonlocality in its complete glory, and that the measurement problem and related issues of quantum-classical dichotomy may be due to the fact an observer is really just a part of a quantum system observing itself. The Davis, Matiyasevich, Putnam, Robinson (DMPR) theorem proves that the solutions for any general element of a Diophantine set is Turing halting, but that any other element may not be. This means the solutions to Diophantine equations are recursively enumerable, and there is a Gödel theorem aspect to this. Now if we have some scheme for Gödel numbering quantum eigenvalues gn(λ) → P(a, x_1, x_2, ..., x_n), for λ an eigenvalue with a code mapped to the solution of a Diophantine equation. The non-solutions may then be the emergence of classicality. Quantum physics does not predict chaotic behavior, and chaotic behavior is in principle an endless recursion of orbits and "filigree" that is recursively enumerable. This may then be a way to think about the relationship between quantum mechanics and the emergence of classical physics with einselection. LC -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
