Something related from the og computer scientist, though does their new result have impacts on the quantum zeno effect? [I]t is easy to show using standard

Something related from the og computer scientist, though does their new result have impacts on the quantum zeno effect? [I]t is easy to show using standard theory that if a system starts in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one, the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, one second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; that is, that continual observations will prevent motion. Alan and I tackled one or two theoretical physicists with this, and they rather pooh-poohed it by saying that continual observation is not possible. But there is nothing in the standard books (e.g., Dirac's) to this effect, so that at least the paradox shows up an inadequacy of Quantum Theory as usually presented. — Quoted by Andrew Hodges in Mathematical Logic, R. O. Gandy and C. E. M. Yates, eds. (Elsevier, 2001), p. 267. > As a result of Turing's suggestion, the quantum Zeno effect is also sometimes known as the Turing paradox.