On Monday, July 15, 2024 at 12:08:13 AM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/14/2024 8:36 AM, PGC wrote: Again, I would have thought that you reading this list for years, just like most regular members/poster, are aware of these difficulties. What can I say Jason? You can say, "I misunderstood Turing emulable." You slapped "negation Turing emulable certitude" on every phenomena stated when I meant randomness/indeterminacy in QM and its conjunctions with a variety of challenging phenomena for some TOE. I overemphasized the latter perhaps. Of course "in principle". Hence my post "If we believe we are Turing emulable at some level of description..." See above. But that doesn't make me certain that something like gravity is completely Turing emulable because I'm not sure. For practical purposes ok. I'd still like to know why the computer outputs infinities of velocity in Fluids with Navier-Stokes. It won't bother the engineer in designing the next fighter jet, but it does bother me. Imho a TOE should clarify or prove non-solvability. -- 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/ed55e7e4-da56-44b9-9a65-4f98d30424c3n%40googlegroups.com.
