Re: Leibniz vs Newton

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1165394114.228893.151430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Michael Hell" <mobydikc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No one has ever recreated a functioning human brain in a computer
simulation of charged particles.

Period.

Therefore, no one has ever made a theory or model that contains first
hand knowledge of what an internal observer would actually see.

It might not happen next week.

But there's no reason to suggest it'll never happen.

Laugh all you want.

I assure you I am.


Here's a good joke:

Part 1. In special relativity, we use mathematical transformations to
determine relative length from proper length

Part 2. The brain can be thought of as a big algorithm, and once better
understood, we could write algorithms like the brain, and we could test
to see if the brain naturally determine relative length from its input


This would be a very complex way of calculating length contraction, and
not very useful in special relativity.

But if the brain, when used as a mathematical transformation, also
computed quantum wierdness from its input, then we have a potential
theory of everything.

.

Quantcast