On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 1:48:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 3/14/2020 4:22 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 5:23:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:07, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> You're ignoring quantum and photonic computing??!! >>> >>> >> No, quantum computing does not even map NP problems into P. I does not >> get around incompleteness results of Turing and Goedel. >> >> >> That’s right. In fact super-hyper-machine does not escape incompleteness >> and can even be super-hyper-incomplete.Using the infinite to escape Gödel >> incompleteness does not work, or becomes trivial. >> >> I will consider admitting the infinite in the ontology the day I got an >> infinite salary :) >> >> Even the induction axioms are not allowed in the ontology, despite being >> the main axiom about what is an observer. >> >> Quantum computing (and I guess photonic computing) does not violate the >> Church-Turing thesis. David Deustch saw this clearly already in its main >> quantum computability paper. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > > https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/weirdest-idea-quantum-physics-catching-there-may-be-endless-worlds-ncna1068706 > > > “It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds where you made > different decisions. We're just obeying the laws of physics,” says Sean > Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology > and the author of a new book on many worlds titled "Something Deeply > Hidden." Just how many versions of you might there be? “We don't know > whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite, but it's certainly a > very large number," Carroll says. "There’s no way it’s, like, five.” > > Renowned theorist Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses the idea as > “reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. On the other hand, > Penrose’s former collaborator, the late Stephen Hawking, described the many > worlds interpretation as “self-evidently true.” > > Coming at the critique from a different angle, Oxford's Roger Penrose > argues that the whole idea of many worlds is flawed, because it’s based on > an overly simplistic version of quantum mechanics that doesn’t account for > gravity. “The rules must change when gravity is involved,” he says. > > In a more complete quantum theory, Penrose argues, gravity helps anchor > reality and blurry events will have only one allowable outcome. He points > to a potentially decisive experiment now being carried out at the > University of California, Santa Barbara, and Leiden University in the > Netherlands that's designed to directly observe how an object transforms > from many possible locations to a single, fixed reality. > > Carroll is unmoved by these alternative explanations, which he considers > overly complicated and unsupported by data. The notion of multiple yous can > be unnerving, he concedes. But to him the underlying concept of many worlds > is “crisp, clear, beautiful, simple and pure.” > > > Did you not follow the discussion with Bruce and Smitra? It is far from > “crisp, > clear, beautiful, simple and pure.” when you actually try to fill out how > it works. > > Brent > >
Roger Penrose is right: Roger Penrose of Oxford University dismisses [many worlds] as “reductio ad absurdum”: physics reduced to absurdity. @philipthrift -- 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/1e6ba2a0-ac22-489f-9300-134d905749d4%40googlegroups.com.
