From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Jun  9 10:06:24 EDT 1992
Article 6038 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.131851.18895@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 13:18:51 GMT
References: <1992Jun1.224511.29070@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 42

In article <1992Jun1.224511.29070@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu  
(Randall Holmes) writes:
> I'm quite certain that the numerical probabilities in the state
> calculation are Turing computable to any desired degree of accuracy
> (when our theory is adequate to set up the calculations at all), and
> beyond this we cannot go; no dice-rolling, even with the benefit of
> contact with real QM phenomena, will give any more information than
> the bare probabilities, if QM is valid.  Nowhere do you exhibit any
> evidence for a super-Turing capability coming out of QM; it is
> certainly unreasonable to fault any machine for being unable to
> predict what cannot be predicted, and it is not evidence for the claim
> that there is a better kind of machine:  _no_ "machine" can predict QM
> effects.

While not (Turing) machine can predict QM effects, QM effects happen so
the universe "predicts" them.  Perhaps a subset of the universe can
be boxed into a convenient black box machine that can "predict" these
effects in a computationaly useful way.  (Is the brain such a black box?)

For details I can only refer you to 
Deutsch, David (1985). Quantum thoery, the Curch-Turing principle and
the universal quantum computer.  _Proc Royal Soc of London, A400,_
97-117.

I could not begin to do justice to Deutsch's detailed discussion.

By invoking quantum mechanics I was trying to show the fallacy I see
in the argument that everyone is seeming to make implicitly:

1. Mind is physical.
2. Computers can simulate all relevant physics relevant to mind.
Therefore computers can simulate mind.

Quantum mechanics is an example of physics that cannot be fully
simulated. 
To me the question of whether QM is relevent is open.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu


