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!att!pacbell.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Tue Jun  9 10:06:28 EDT 1992
Article 6043 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!att!pacbell.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.155056.11642@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 15:50:56 GMT
References: <1992Jun1.224511.29070@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1992Jun2.131851.18895@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Lines: 77
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal

In article <1992Jun2.131851.18895@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>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?)

The universe does not predict the QM effects; it simply exhibits them.
It would only predict them if it were actually deterministic on a
deeper level; i.e., if QM were only an approximation to the real
situation!

>
>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.

If premises 1 and 2 are valid, we can indeed simulate mind.  The
simulated mind will behave unpredictably at certain points, just like
real minds.  (As I have indicated elsewhere, I think that "mind" is
one of the fixed points of the function (X |-> simulated X)).

>
>Quantum mechanics is an example of physics that cannot be fully
>simulated. 

It certainly can be simulated.  You simply have to roll dice at the
right point (and not stupidly -- i.e., not locally).  Also, you have
to do really tough mathematics to set up your simulation correctly.  I
believe that this is actually done -- for very small systems (atoms!).

>To me the question of whether QM is relevent is open.

I suspect that QM effects may be relevant, but mostly in the form of
providing random numbers when these are useful; sometimes an
intelligence needs to make a decision when there are no grounds for
the decision (nothing to do with "free will"; our behaviour in
situations where "free will" is supposed to be involved had better be
determined!)

>
>--
>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


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


