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 <goldenfield...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 11:21:55 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e6ba2a0-ac22-489f-9300-134d905749d4%40googlegroups.com.
