[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[Michael Gogins]

You are correct. But then, science does not prove things the same way logic or mathematics does. Of course, I know of no better basis for judgment about the physical world than accepted scientific theory. In practice, well tested theories can and should be used as facts until better theories come along -- that is what theories are for. This is the cause of much confusion about evolutionary theory versus creationism or "intelligent design". In other words, just because evolutionary theory is a theory, that does not mean it does not currently have the full weight of a fact.

I repeat, until a better theory comes along, we must go with QM's claim of infinite true randomness and the consequent implication that physical reality is not computable. If and when Wolfram or someone else puts forward a physical theory that makes better predictions than quantum mechanics AND that theory does not assume true randomness, at that point I will begin to take this discrete universe business seriously. But there is no reason for me to do that now.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: rob at robmyers.org
>Sent: Feb 21, 2006 10:01 AM
>To: generative art <eu-gene at generative.net>
>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23
>
>Quoting Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com>:
>
>> You miss my point. Quantum randomness (if it actually exists, QM is a 
>> theory not a fact, though so well tested we must treat as a fact till 
>> a better theory comes along) proves that the universe is not 
>> computable.
>
>"But we should not forget that the claim of true randomness has not yet been
>backed by evidence. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle nor Bell's
>inequality exclude the possibility, however small, that the Universe, 
>including
>all observers inhabiting it, is in principle computable by a completely
>deterministic computer program, as first suggested by computer pioneer Konrad
>Zuse in 1967 (Elektron. Datenverarb. 8, 336344; 1967)."
>
>- http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/randomness.html
>
>Both Zuse and Wolfram claim that, whatever QM may have to say on the 
>matter, the
>universe is discretely computable. Although given the reviews of NKoS 
>I've seen,
>possibly I should just say Zuse. :-) There's a good German website on Zuse in
>English that I can't find the URL for just at the moment. :-/
>
>- Rob.
>
>
>
>-- 
>'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am I to disagree?'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene