> On 10 Mar 2020, at 12:04, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 11:54:15 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I will have to write more if possible. I am not sure that all of physics is > derived from Gödel’s theorem. I see is as more that from classical to quantum > mechanics there is a sort of forcing, to borrow from set theory, to extend a > model with undecidable propositions. Where this undecidable matter enters in > is with the problem of measurement and decoherence. > > > There is nothing in any quantum mechanics theory that goes beyond a > formulation in terms of a quantum Turing machine. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machine > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machine> > > Quantum Turing machines can be related to classical and probabilistic Turing > machines in a framework based on transition matrices > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_matrix>. That is, a matrix can be > specified whose product with the matrix representing a classical or > probabilistic machine provides the quantum probability matrix representing > the quantum machine. This was shown by Lance Fortnow > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Fortnow>. [ > https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003035 > <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003035> ] > > Actually it can all be reduced to the SKIP calculus. > > > SKIP: Probabilistic SKI combinator calculus > <https://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2013/06/skip-probabilistic-ski-combinator.html> > > Add to the S, K, and I combinators of the SKI combinator calculus > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKI_combinator_calculus> the P combinator: > > Sxyz = xz(yz) > Kxy = x > Ix = x > P = K or KI with equal probability (0.5) > > It follows that Pxy evaluates to Kxy or KIxy, then to x or Iy = y with equal > probability. > > There is nothing "uncomputable" in any of this. > > @philipthrift > > Except predicting the outcome of any quantum measurement in a deterministic > manner.
Nor the simpler WM outcome in the simple classical WM-self-duplication. Arithmetic seen from inside might still look too much random, and if that is shown to be the case, Mechanism is refuted, but up to now, Nature confirms Mechanism Immaterialist and non computable predictions. Classical mechanics does contradict Mechanism, with intuitively from the thought experience, and formally, by the non booleanity of the logic of observation imposed by Mechanism. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5f30902-a57e-47a2-9587-293757a503fd%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5f30902-a57e-47a2-9587-293757a503fd%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ED24ACEF-F15A-410C-9A2E-9F4744F53985%40ulb.ac.be.
