[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance" project.

[Richard Hanson]

Jeff Shannon wrote:

> Ville Vainio wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>"Richard" == Richard Hanson <me at privacy.net> writes:
> >>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> >
> >    Richard> undecidable things left unsaid for now. It is a commonly
> >    Richard> accepted thesis that the universe is evolving following
> >    Richard> some, possibly ultimately unknowable, immutable set of
> >    Richard> laws. Humans *do* seem to do
> >
> >Is it? For some reason or another, many seem to believe that quantum
> >mechanics provides some blissfull exit from the immutable set of laws
> >(and deterministic universe). It's a place where God throws dice every
> >time a particle hits another.
> 
> Ah, but quantum mechanics are still a (supposedly) immutable set of laws 
> -- they are nondeterministic laws, to be sure, but that doesn't prevent 
> them from being laws.  Quantum uncertainty follows a specific set of 
> rules, even if we haven't figured out what all of those rules are, and 
> even if those rules are expressed in probabilities.  If one were to 
> believe that the universe did not follow an immutable (or nearly so) set 
> of laws, then one would also necessarily believe that science is 
> pointless, since the purpose of science is to try to figure out the laws 
> by which the universe operates.  God may throw dice, but if we're 
> careful we can reconstruct the rules of the game He's playing.  :)

And -- keeping it well in mind that I am only a mere autodidact ;-) --
I am starting to align with the quantum-loop-gravity, spin-foam,
M-brane (generalized string theory), and such theorists. It is
possible that in the higher-dimensioned theories, quantum mechanics
will turn out to be deterministic. Or, at least that's what I'm quite
foggily gathering from hanging out on sci.physics.research and other
suchlike readings. :-)


Richard Hanson

-- 
sick<PERI0D>old<P0INT>fart<PIE-DEC0-SYMB0L>newsguy<MARK>com