On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-5, Douglas Eagleson wrote:   
   > Stated another way. Is a set of observations   
   > used to compute a probability, allowed to be   
   > classified as a computation? Or, is probability   
   > computable?  But, what becomes the allowed use of   
   > probability?  This last question is the crux of   
   > the existence of Quantum Mechanics, QM, as a viable theory.   
   >   
   > I do not think of anyway to reject the existence of   
   > probability in general.  There exists a function in   
   > mathematics for the size of a permutation, N!.   
   > The set of observations does need to be evenly distributed   
   > on this function though.   
   >   
   > Is there a QM probability observed without the even   
   > distribution? The easy answer is to allow any system given   
   > to function as being computable.  Maybe there needs to be   
   > consideration of functional symmetry.   If A infers B then   
   > B must be allowed to infer A.  This mathematical symmetry   
   > does not work with a probabilistic function. B as the averaged   
   > state probability can not infer a single value of A.   
   >   
   > Begging the question.  Given a probabilistic state to   
   > observe, how does one observe the size N of the system?   
   > For lack of a better answer to the original poster's question   
   > I submit that if N is known the system is computable, if N   
   > is not known the observer needs to reformulate.   
      
   17-JAN-2019   
      
      
   Grateful for the increased resolution.   
      
   I'll try a schematic:   
      
   Observable A with computability index N!.   
   A is observable IFF A is computable.   
   A is computable IFF A is observable (not too sure about this).   
      
   N is unknown.   
   I observe A (anyway).   
   I infer A is computing A.   
      
   I infer my act of observing is computable,   
   with computability index N!.   
      
   N is unknown.   
   I observe anyway.   
   I infer I am computing the act of observing.   
   (not too sure about this one).   
      
   If A halts, entropy of A goes up; A becomes   
   (eventually) unobservable.   
      
   If I halt, I become unobservable.   
   I infer that I compute I.   
      
   If I observe A approaching the event horizon of   
   a black hole, I observe A halt.  Its clock stops.   
      
   What size N now?   
      
   A fades.   
      
   mj horn   
      
   [[Mod. note -- Note that your observation of A "halting" as it   
   approaches the event horizon of a black hole is in some sense an   
   optical illusion.  An observer colocated with A itself does not   
   observe this.  In fact, you can see the same phenomenon in flat   
   (Minkowski) spacetime if A approaches the Rindler horizon of a   
   continuously-accelerating observer.   
   -- jt]]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)