Genady

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics | Physics Today | AIP Publishing

This sentence (see the title) has appeared several times recently in this forum. Could somebody please explain to me what it means? I honestly don't understand.

How do you know this?

i.e., as long as brain is a 'black box,' I agree. I know that now, it pretty much is. I think, I know now what the quoted sentence referred to. Thanks a lot.

Certainly, any static picture, even one that includes not only the connectome map but also momentary distribution of all neurotransmitters etc., is not sufficient. Dynamic data are necessary. Here is another analogy, weather. Static satellite pictures of current weather conditions do not allow to make predictions. Dynamic data are necessary. But I doubt that it necessitates knowledge of the entire history of Earth. Cf.,

I guess the snapshot of a state is not the same as the state. Using a mechanical analogy again, is a snapshot like a 'position' of particle, while a state is its 'position and momentum'?

This is correct. +1

I think my lack of understanding of this point is caused by my lack of understanding of what "to reconstruct what things mean" means. My point (perhaps different from the one in question) is that to describe the next state of a system all one needs to consider is its current state and the current state of all external factors that affect it.

My source tells me that people come up with quite a wide range of answers: Unfortunately, it does not explain what kind of errors they make.

The brains are different - the results should be expected to be different. As in a simplest mechanical system, the same force being applied to different masses causes different accelerations.

I understand that there are no two identical brains. What I don't understand is, how history of a given brain can affect its current thoughts and memories without affecting its current state.

The statement in the article, which I did not fully understand is this: I don't think it is explained in the article, why it might be so.

This is good and I can make it into a question. +1

No, I hope it does not. I meant to make it obvious that the hardcoded number is nowhere in the crystal, but the number appears as a result of the white light going through the entire crystal. And there is no algorithm anywhere in the crystal for retrieval of the number. So, I tried to make a simple example of a thing where "memorizing a number does not necessarily store the number itself", etc. If my example failed to demonstrate it, too bad for the example. (Do people know what I mean by rainbow crystal? My wife has one hanging on top of the window. It makes beautiful moving and changing colorful patterns on the wall in the morning.)

Just as a mental experiment... Let's imagine an elaborated rainbow crystal. Depending on direction of an incoming white light, different multicolored patterns are projected out of it. The query for social security number is associated with a specific direction of incoming light. When light comes onto the crystal from that direction, the social security number is projected out.

I got all of them (guess it was a short 'writer's block'). Nevertheless, if you have interesting suggestions, I could use them, too. Thank you.

To practice conversations with students who study ASL with me, I need to prepare a list of questions each using at least two words from a vocabulary. I got quite a lot of them (examples below), but am stuck with the remaining words: give maybe less little-bit outside not matter take happy various wind Here are some examples of the questions: why does snow become grey? what is the hardest part in learning ASL? do you know an old legend about a man who wanted to touch the sun? what kind of errors do you make most often? Any suggestions?

Sorry to hear that. Your perspective is valuable IMO. Thank you. I am not participating in this thread because it became clear to me that the topic is not scientific but rather belongs to a philosophy of engineering. I 'woke up' only because this recent reference is about a scientific hypothesis regarding a brain function.

I'm not participating in this thread anymore but just want to thank you for this reference.

Yes, it was. Yes, it is. No more.

Your question is engineering (boring). My question is scientific (interesting).

That is the question. +1

Yes, of course. But it'd be OT in this thread.