Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:29:45 -0400
> Are you willing to consider the possibility that both gravity and EMF
>have both QM and GR aspects?
Hmmm. Well in normal conditions EMF has nothing to do with GR.
In very high energy circumstances, however, GR is probably needed to
explain EMF. This is why they want to build huge accelerators to test
unified field theories!
> It is this "becoming definite" that is a computational action. But I
>disagree with Ben that [observations are just] "chosen <b>at random</b>
>from among the possibilities provided". There is both randomness and
>order. Look at the Surprise 20 questions game. The questions and answers
>are random but constrained to be logically consistent with all previous
>questions and answers. Here we have a chaining of logical inference that
>*can not be assumed to exist a priori*. This is at the heart of Pratt
>and Peter's thinking.
The Surprise 20 Questions game does not contradict the statement that
a choice of universe is made "at random" when the wave function collapses
(to use standard QM terminology for lack of anything better).
When a random collapse occurs, of course it is constrained to within a
narrow range of choices. Otherwise the universe would be complete chaos!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST