I realize that this is not the right reason to contribute, but having spent the last week looking into possible applications that take advantage of flavour oscillations in neutrinos due to the weak force, I am compelled to say a few things about QM.
First, if quantum mechanics is false and classical mech true, this universe doen't exist. Why? Because atoms would collapse in on themself Because QCD wouldn't apply and there would be no reason for protons and neutrons; so I guess there wouldn't even be atoms in the first place.
Second, QM doesn't say that things just do whatever they want. QM predicts what the distribution of outcomes will be from repeating an experiment. The only big philosophical point here is that in QM this is the most you can ever know. In fact, it doesn't even say that this is all there is, just that we have limited epistemic access to the inner workings of particle interactions. Which isn't surprising since you actually need particle interaction to constitue observation.
Third, randomness doesn't mean that things just do anything. If I hae a bag of white and black marbles and pull one out at random, then it will still be white or black and still be a marble. In short, I cannot pull out a blue turkey. So even if QM was random in a very generic sense, it wouldn't imply "anything goes".
Fourth, even though classical mechanics allows perfect information, it is impossible to achieve. Take two marbles and setup an apparatus that will collide them so everytime the exact, and I mean 100% exact, same thing will occur. Try as you might, you'll never obtain such a setup. So, even if QM is false, we are still stuck with randomness. Only diff, in classical mechanics you get to say, "Well it's possible to know it exactly...to be bad we don't get to". In short, classical determinism is an axiom without a purpose; why should we put faith in it? If anything QM requires less faith by excising this view.
Having said that, I wanted to respond to a few of the points about mathematics.
DO NOT PUT FAITH INTO MATHS BECAUSE IT IS BROKE!!!
We have a fraction, say 1/3. It's decimal equivalent is 0.3333 (recurring).
so 1/3 = 0.3333
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.3333 (recurring)
1 = 0.9999 (recurring)
Say, what?!
1/3 is the result of forming the fraction field of an integral domain, the integers.
.3333~ is a representation of a number that is gotten using the completeness of the reals and some field stuff.
Thus, all the above shows is that .999~ is another rep for 1.
In short, .3333~ is not a "number", but a symbol for a number.
If you want to give them ontological status beyond that of "symbol" for a number for some reason, then
you need to start with the integers and complete them up to R, else they aren't going to be definable. However, the only way to get from Q to R is to form classes of some kind. Thus, you are no longer just dealing with "numbers", and the whole assumption gets undermind. Thus, you are forced with assuming that anything we write down is gong to be a symbol for a number, not the number; and for that reason, your above doesn't really ammount to math being broken.
It's not possible, even with infinitely powerful hardware, to fully simulate consciousness. This has been mathematically proven about thirty years ago
Don't take this offensively, I don't mean it as such; but if you read this, then it was incorrect or you misread it. Mathematics can't prove things about the world, that requires a theory to connect the math to the physical universe. However, once this occurs, it is no longer mathematics. Relatedly, you may have read something that said something along the lines of,
Consciousness should do x, y, and z. Neural nets/braid nets/pattern cores/etc. can't due each of these. Thus, NN/BN/PC/etc. can't simulate humans.
However, for this to mean anything even remotely interesting requires proving that consciousness is really x, y, and z. Given the current state of research, we can't say anything even remotely like this without over specifying and coming up with a def of consciousness that isn't anything like what we usually consider it. Also, many people are interested in trying to simulate consciousness at some point, they wouldn't be if it was already proven impossible.
Having ranted on enough about what has been said, I give my own views.
I think that the major problem is not "what is real?", but "what can we define?". To clarify, if we can only define things in terms of our senses, then to say that something is "real", but outside of human senses is not saying anything. Essentially, it's not that such a statement is false, just that we can't really mean something with it; we can't understand something that is inaccessible. It would be like talking about how happy your are you accepted the job offer you turned down last week. Since the experience is inaccessible, you can't really speak about it; even though your words look like they make sense, they convey nothing meaningful.
Of course, it may be possible to apprehend things outside of our senses by other epistemic means (rationalism, idealism, etc.) So, to conclude, "real" is whatever objects exist in the broadest epistemic sense, and nothing more; perhaps, somewhere, there are things that have extra epistemic magic and they have a larger "real", but whatever the case is, ours is relative to what we are.
