We left wing milk and water liberal political correctness fanatics do not need to agree with the arseholes whose human rights we defend. — unenlightened

But you don't defend the child-brides, you don't defend the raped, you don't defend the beheaded, you don't defend the genocided, or the genitally mutilated. You do however defend those practices. Well done!

If all the laws of physics can be computed, then doesn't that presuppose that logic is at least synonymous or at least as important as physics is. Or rather that physics relies on the laws of logic? — Question

No, it means that physics is a subset of reason. Science is constrained by the fact that it only deals with physical reality. Reason is not constrained in any way.

No, if something is computable (doesn't encounter the Halting problem), then it is real in some sense. If something can't be computed then that is indicative of a gap in understanding or that there are some things that are unintelligible. — Question

No aspect of physical reality in non-computable.

I made a post about this issue over at physics forum. — Question

Best of luck with that.

Could you ask them to prove the Principle of the Conservation of Energy while you're at it?

The CTD Principle is proved under quantum mechanics. Otherwise, it is a conjecture about future unknown laws. It is a guide to what they must be like. Just as we expect any future law to be Unitary.

For the lazy: stoning to death is the punishment. — Emptyheady

I think you reveal yourself here as an amateur Islamic scholar, unaware of the subtleties, nuances and rules of abrogation in that deeply complex religion. Allow me to educate you:

While stoning to death is AN accepted method of killing gays (Quran 7: 80-84, 15:72, 27:58, 29:40), it is not the ONLY method.

Gays can also be killed by throwing them off roofs, THEN stoning them if they are not already dead. OR they can be burnt at the stake.

Is Quantum Mechanics true? What has its truth or falsity of quantum mechanics got to do with anybody's mind?

So, then how can we know for certain that the MWI is actual/real/valid/.../true if the only practical means of verifying it is via trying to simulate the universe via the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle? — Question

Everett's is the only explanation of quantum mechanics known. It is also the only explanation that is testable and which agrees with quantum mechanics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048

I'm going to try and simplify my question to a more simple one pertaining as to whether Godel's Incompleteness Theorems negates the possibility of constructing a universal Turing machine that would be capable of computing all known physical laws. — Question

Those sorts of machines already exist, and a theorem regarding proofs in mathematics didn't stop that happening!

Quantum computers and classical computers share the same set of computable functions. Given eternity, infinite power, infinite memory, then a classical computer can perform the same calculations that would take a rudementary quantum computer a few cycles.

In the case of the classical computer, we are happy to point to where the calculation is taking place - here's the cpu, here's the memory etc. Where does all this happen in a quantum computer?

To put this in a bit of perspective, the visible universe is thought to contain ~2^149 bits of information (from memory). A rudimentary quantum computer with a few hundred qubits outstrips that by an astronomical figure. Actually, "astronomical" doesn't even begin to express the magnitude of the difference.

As David Deutsch has said, when the first quantum computer is constructed, its major impact will be psychological.

Or am I running in circles in trying to state that all physical laws can be proven to be true (computable or replicable?). — Question

I think I have already mentioned that no scientific law can be "proven to be true". They can however, be tested.

So, the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle can never be known to be true. Thus, we don't know if we can simulate Everittian QM and know it is deterministic at the same time. — Question

No, you can't certify any scientific theory as true (for the nth time) and that has been known since at least 1936.

Now, what difference does that make?

And there are dragons at the edge of the world and the Krampus will get you if you're alone in the woods at Christmas. Provide actual evidence for these allegations, and I mean actual court proceedings not hate filled propaganda from right wing newspapers! — Barry Etheridge

The British Muslim who was spared jail because he successfully pleaded ignorance that raping a 13yr old is against the law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html

Muslim who had his conviction for rape of a 10 year old boy overturned because he could not be aware the 10 year old did not want to be raped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html

The Muslims let off gang-rape because their wheel-chair bound victim was judged not to have tried to run away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

Here's the government report into the gang-rape of 1,400 underage girls by Muslims in one town in UK.

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

UKIP hasn't made it books public where it has gotten money, just like well, Trump hasn't given his tax records. Yet here it should be noticed that parties like UKIP or the National Front aren't parties invented by Moscow and directly lead by Moscow as the historical Komintern. Still, obviously there is a link. When a politician praises a dictator like Putin, there usually is a reason... like money.

For example, Sweden Democrats (if I am correct) are a party that indeed does have it's Neo-nazi roots and has it admirers of Putin, yet it isn't linked to Russia as some other far right wing parties are. And actually it voted in favour of the new treaty between Sweden and NATO, which Russia was totally against. — ssu

You are a fantasist, conspiracy theorist with no evidence.

This is an issue because given any sufficiently sophisticated universal computing device there will be "truths" or what can be called manifest physical laws (through mathematics, e.g in Hilbert Space) that can't be proven to be true. — Question

Nothing in science can be proven true. This isn't news.

This is essentially putting a thorn via Godel's Incompleteness Theorems into the validity of the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. I don't know if you see the link there yet or if I haven't made the causal link sufficiently clear. — Question

Godel's theorem is irrelevant.

If you want to take this line of reasoning as far as possible, then this conundrum extends all the way to ANY physical law, in that we can never be certain of it being true in all circumstances. — Question

It is logically impossible to certify a physical law as true. This isn't news.

So how you do we should change the Muslims? — WiseMoron

Muslims are permitted to rape in Europe. Famously one was let off raping a 10yr old boy in Austria. One was spared jail in UK because his plea of ignorance of the law regarding rape of a 13 year old girl was upheld. That particular rapist was born and raised in UK.

Start by holding them to the same standards as everyone else.

e.g. there are esimated 1000s of married Muslim children in Europe. Jail the rapists and put the children in care.

Unless you're going to offer me an extensive bibliography, from people having done some actual research or having real life experience in these Muslim societies, on which you've based your assumptions and conclusions, I'm just going to assume you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei

You don't need to go to Saudi, Rotherham or Molenbeek will do.

Well, the Quran may have some bad things in it, but so do other religious texts from other religions such as the Christian Bible, which I pointed out in my post. — WiseMoron

ISIS follow the Quran and the Hadith to the letter. Saudi similarly, that is why you can marry a 6yr old there, and why gays, atheists, and sorcerers (i.e. foreign maids who the employer has tired of raping) get beheaded in public.

So yes, the Quran may indeed have some bad things in it.

Muslims aren't going to be willing to change the Quran, — WiseMoron

Well no, they aren't going to change the direct and infallible word of god. Hence to many, the world is flat, ants talk, and rape of infidels is fine. Oh yes, the Jews are worse than pigs and apes.

Please enlighten me how changing or burning some foul book will change a group of people permanently. Or would it be much easier to just kill the Muslims for being delusional? — WiseMoron

Nazism is banned.

What I mean exactly is that the problem isn’t the religious book called the Quran, — WiseMoron

You should read the Quran then.

Yet with supporting clandestinely Trump, giving loans to the French National Front and having connections to far-right and anti-immigration / anti-EU parties, Russia now has hit a populist streak that likely it didn't think would be possible. — ssu

Isn't this just a baseless smear from the DNC playbook. The lie about Putin funding UKIP is in the hands of lawyers in US.

Now the reason why I can't be for Putin is that he wants to subjugate Europe. — Agustino

What evidence do you have that Putin wants to subjugate Europe?

I want Europe to become a regional superpower. Europe must live up to its great heritage, — Agustino

As Putin said, "A nation that cannot protect its own children has no future."

So Brexit may have been inevitable. From a physics perspective, it's just a matter of time before the right kind and amount of stress comes along and the EU will basically be gone. — Mongrel

And it was inevitable, that the first exit would be a country that was only half in EU any way - no Euro, no Schengen.

What is becoming clearer with each passing humanitarian disaster, be it in the Mediterranean or on the Promenade des Anglais, is that the EU doesn't work. Or rather, its main function, which is to extort money from countries in return the imposition of German policies is working rather well.

The migrant crisis is a case in point. This was a policy decision made unilaterally by Germany, which has affected every other country in the EU, and involves the overturning of the Dublin Convention - i.e. breaking EU law.

Then there is the economic crisis in southern Europe, which has been manufactured solely to deflate the Euro in order to ensure German prosperity. We forget that democracy has been suspended in Italy and Greece!

Brexit may not happen this time, but it will happen.

But whereas a statement is what it is in virtue of expressing a propositional content which, in turn, is what it is in virtue of being inferentially related to other such contents, DNA is not. — Theorem

But the information content of DNA can't be anything other than a proposition, whose truth content in objectively measured by comparison with variants of that proposition.

And all this without a mind.

Statements (as signs) are essentially conceptual/inferential in nature, whereas DNA (even if it be a sign in some sense) is not. — Theorem

What justification do you have to claim that the DNA encoding does not refer to anything?

It means we can conjecture true laws, but just as in mathematics, they cannot be certified as true by any algorithmic process. Not sure why you think that significant.

Progress is never-ending, but guaranteed. All problems are soluble. How can we be expected to solve a problem if we don't know it exists.

What does "unintelligible" mean? The laws of physics are all computable - that means that any finite physical system may be simulated to arbitrary accuracy by a universal computer. For something to be "unintelligible" that means it is contra the laws of physics, which is impossible.

The REASON for Godel's theorems is that the laws of physics do not support non-computable functions, which almost always involve infinite processes. Godel states that the overwhelming majority of mathematic truths cannot be proved by a physical process.

All this does is put mathematics on the same footing as physics - nothing in physics can be proved!

What is the difference between the information encoded in DNA and the information encoded in a statement?

It doesn't require mathematics. But even IF it did, what implication does Godel hold for simulating reality, or any part of it?

Well if physics is mathematics manifest in nature, then a computer modeling such a mathematical construct would have to face with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also? That's at least how I understand the issue. — Question

IF that were the case, then what has Godel have to do with it?

But it's not the case.

Yes I do, mostly because I subscribe to the notion that statements are sign relations that require one or more minds as fundament in order to be instantiated. — Theorem

What is the DNA code a statement about?

Let me elaborate my reasoning. Let's say that some sufficiently complex computer of whatever origin is designed to simulate all the physical laws of the universe. Now, keeping Godels Incompleteness Theorem in mind we have a problem of affirming that every outcome of such a computer is determinate. How does a computer of such sort prove its own consistency in modeling deterministic behavior? — Question

How does science prove anything? It doesn't!

Goldel showed that the overwhelming majority of mathematical truths can't be proved. Not sure why you think that truth is relevant to physics.

It won't make any difference. The point that always comes up is the fact that Everett's metaphysic implies that the universe 'splits', that each separate outcome is real, that there really are 'many worlds'. Sometimes you will deny it, sometimes you will agree - even spelling the Worlds with a capital W. And this will never end, it the only topic of interest to you, everything you write ends up being about this, David Deutch, the Turing whatever it is, artificial intelligence, the quantum computer which will basically be like God. I don't think you show the least interest in, or knowledge of, the subject of philosophy as such, except insofar as it is related to this subject. So I won't be bothering you again, it's clear that nothing anyone says here is going to make the least difference to your belief system. — Wayfarer

It seems I must establish a sub-category:

1. Everett got it wrong due to my personal incapacity to comprehend.
1.1 Everett got it even more wrong due to the fact I have been humiliated on a public forum.

I have already covered.

4. Attribution of religion.

Thanks for reminding me though.

Thanks for the new devastating criticisms:

5. Capitalisation of Words. Devastating!

6. Mentioning David Deutsch. Maybe you don't care that I mentioned Wallace, Everett, Schrödinger, Hawking, and implicitly DWitt?

We officially have ad hominem as an argument against Everett!

7. You claim I have no interest in Philosophy. For real!

Or, Everett got it wrong because the 'wave collapse' actually occurs. — Wayfarer

Do we have to go through Bell's and other associated theorems AGAIN?

The apple sitting on the table is the same apple that I pick up and take a bite out of a few seconds later. That is what is meant by identity. — Andrew M

The main contenders are:

1. Everett got it wrong due to my personal inability to comprehend.

2. Everett got it wrong because of my personal incredulity.

3. Everett got it wrong because I personally deny anything in a generic way, including apples.

There is one way to answer this pertinent question. If every physical law is computable, then we can recreate reality (on a much smaller scale) here on earth... — Question

We know that every physical law is computable, and that any future law will be too. This is called the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be confused with the Church-Turing Thesis).

Even a fairly rudimentary quantum computer will have the sheer capacity to simulate billions of visible universes simultaneously. Programming it to do so, is another matter of course.

And Godel's Incompleteness Theorem certainly comes into play here. — Question

Pretty sure it doesn't.

Thank you, I think I understand now. One last question that is on my mind. Does Everettian QM obey causality? And if not what determines the evolution of the wavefunction? — Question

Everettian QM is better than that - it is fully deterministic. i.e. given the state of the system at any time, plus the laws of motion, the state at any other time is determined. This goes for the future, and the past.

The universal wavefunction is static. Here's some experimental evidence to support this view:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933#.t4rlu8hvu

This is an amazingly beautiful and powerful idea - the multiverse is at rest, and because of this it is in an eigenstate of its Hamiltonian. Different times are just special cases of different worlds, related by the laws of physics.

The first quote gives me the impression that this one wavefunction is representative of all interactions between objects in space, which seems to go against quote 3. — Question

Some people, being incapable of any deeper thought, put a lot of store by what something is called. The original name for Everettian QM was The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction. Since then, nothing has really change.

When realist claim the wavefunction is "real", what they are asserting is that the Reality has properties which are in one-to-one correspondence with the mathematical properties of the wavefunction and the configuration space upon which it exists.

So, this mathematical description must provide direct descriptions - e.g. atomic orbitals, and permit emergent quasi-classical physics. If it fails to do this, then QM fails. QM has been tested and analysed to destruction, and nothing has been found to render it problematic.

How the Universal Wavefunction manages to do this is down to a property of the (projective) Hilbert Space it inhabits - i.e. separability.

Just like real space, what happens in Andromeda does not affect what happens here at the same time. What happens in sectors of the Hilbert space don't affect each other immediately either.

Now, I'm having trouble understanding how quote 2 and 3 can coexist. All physical interactions are treated exactly the same relative to what? — Question

There is no special "observer" interaction, causing wavefunction collapse. All interactions are the same as each other.

No idea what you are on about. All physical interactions are local, having no effect on space like separated regions. Everett respects relativity.

You appear not to understand the implications for contextuality of locality.

Sounds like something you say in a cult. Never mind me, I never got past understanding how one defines an 'observer' in QM. — Question

I enjoy collecting these fallacies - this one I will call the attribution of religion.

Can things get any more pathetic on a philosophy forum ... probably.

There is no 'observer' under Everettian QM. All physical interactions are treated exactly the same.

It's the "PBR" paper, and it argues exactly the opposite.

I find it solipsistic and incomprehensible to view every entity existing in a multiplicity of states in the multiverse. Doesn't one wavefunction entail another or do these wavefunctions exist/evolve independently? — Question

I'm gong to make a list of the arguments against Everettian QM that appear in this thread. The argument from personal incredulity is most of them.

There is only one wavefunction.

Does anyone think the MWI, leads to notions of solipsism for any particular observer? — Question

Quite the opposite! Everettian QM is observer-independent, furthermore, you only exist in an infinitesimal slice of the multiverse.