from George Levy, 1 Jun 2001:
> A purely mechanical model no matter how complicated, including random
> variables, cannot replicate the results generated by Quantum mechanics +
> probability theory. This is exactly what Bell's inequality implies. In
> fact Bell proved his inequality using Quantum
John and Hal, Bruno and all everythingers, sorry for the delay guys, I
was travelling and had lots of work. Bruno, I just scanned your post quickly.
It seems to me we are going in the right direction but I shall need time
to digest what you wrote. I shall reply to you later
Let me first reply to
Hi John, Hal
I have to leave on a week long trip I'll reply to your posts when I return.
George
George, thanks for your reply, which is almost as convoluted and
hard-to-follow as was my question. You wrote:
> I am not restricting anything. I am only saying that Juergens has to
choose
> between violating Bell's inequality theorem and all that this implies, or
not
> and all that this implies
Well I thought the whole point was to restrict the universe (that we're
in) by the anthropic principle. But if the anthropic principle is to
meant to include all intelligent beings, then some theory will be
necessary to say in what respects the universe could differ and still
produce intelligent
Dear George:
I do not see how the aspect of Juergen's approach he cited at the
initiation of this part of the thread causes a dilemma re Bell's
inequality. As I understand it the history h is not THE history until the
applicable portion of h stops changing. But p and q are both non
halting.
jamikes wrote:
> "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Saturday, May 05, 2001 :
>
> (SNIP Jurgen's remark about "such a universe" whatever, my remark is not
> topical, rather principle:)
>
> > Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum randomness
> > cannot be simulate
"George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Saturday, May 05, 2001 :
(SNIP Jurgen's remark about "such a universe" whatever, my remark is not
topical, rather principle:)
> Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum randomness
> cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have
Dear Bruno:
At , you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> >This is particularly due to my stand that true random noise is
> >inherent in each universe within the Everything.
>
>Remember that true random noise appear in the UDA because we don't know
>in which computation ("universe") we belong. So random n
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>This is particularly due to my stand that true random noise is
>inherent in each universe within the Everything.
Remember that true random noise appear in the UDA because we don't know
in which computation ("universe") we belong. So random noise does
not need to be added. It is
Dear Juergen:
My little isomorphism tree did not transmit very well.
The second column heading should read: "horizontal on this page isomorphic
links"
The third should read: "the isomorphically linked string"
All the binary strings should be under the third column.
Yours
Hal
*
Dear Bruno:
At , you wrote:
>Juergen Schmidhuber wrote
>
> >Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
> >a somewhat vaguely defined set of ``self-consistent mathematical
> >structures,'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
> >Marchal and George Levy a
Dear Juergen:
I am not so much interested in provability as I am in whether or not the
"noise" in a universe's evolution is pseudorandom or random and forging an
Everything that was as free of information [selection] as possible. I try
to use incompleteness in various forms to show that as fa
>> Such a virtual reality or universe is perfectly well-defined.
> Such a universe would violate Bell's inequality theorem. Quantum randomness
> cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have to move beyond
> realism..to get a model of objective reality we must first develop a
> model of c
scerir wrote:
>Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
>> Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
>> a somewhat vaguely defined set of "self-consistent mathematical
>> structures'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
>> Marchal and George Levy and Ha
Juergen Schmidhuber wrote
>Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
>a somewhat vaguely defined set of ``self-consistent mathematical
>structures,'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
>Marchal and George Levy and Hal Ruhl also focus on what's prova
George Levy wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite
> > nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes a
> > short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts. The
> > n-th pseudorandom eve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Example: a never ending universe history h is computed by a finite
> nonhalting program p. To simulate randomness and noise etc, p invokes a
> short pseudorandom generator subroutine q which also never halts. The
> n-th pseudorandom event of history h is based on q's
Sorry, some how my mailer decided I wanted to send this.
Clearly it is not done.
Dear Juergen:
I am not so much interested in provability as I am in whether or not the
"noise" in a universes history is pseudorandom or random and forging an .
At 5/4/01, you wrote:
>Which are the logically
Dear Juergen:
I am not so much interested in provability as I am in whether or not the
"noise" in a universes history is pseudorandom or random and forging an .
At 5/4/01, you wrote:
>Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
>a somewhat vaguely defined set of ``sel
> Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> > Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
> > a somewhat vaguely defined set of "self-consistent mathematical
> > structures'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
> > Marchal and George Levy and Hal Ruhl also focus o
Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
> a somewhat vaguely defined set of "self-consistent mathematical
> structures'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
> Marchal and George Levy and Hal Ruhl also focus on
Which are the logically possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
a somewhat vaguely defined set of ``self-consistent mathematical
structures,'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
Marchal and George Levy and Hal Ruhl also focus on what's provable and
what's not.
Is provabi
23 matches
Mail list logo
