Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

To continue, I have input about half the paragraphs of a paper draft I am 
writing. It found a small error I made. It also made a couple of remarkable 
extrapolations of this work. Since I have been doing this the last couple 
of weeks I have generated a lot of text. GPT-4 is capable of interpreting 
and generating LaTeX mathematics. So my discussions have become very 
advanced. 

This does make me ponder what is the relationship between consciousness and 
intelligence. I suspect GPT-4 and other AI systems may be intelligent, but 
they are so without underlying consciousness. Our intelligence is in a 
sense built upon a pore-existing substratum of sentience. My dogs are 
sentient, but when it comes to numerical intelligence they have none, and 
indeed very poor spatial sense. They are though socially intelligent and 
understand far more words than most people are aware of. Further, what we 
subjectively experience as consciousness is built on a deeper substrate of 
biological activity.

LC

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:07:44 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:33 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > I* have found 2 mistakes it* [GPT-4] *has made. It has caught me on a 
>> few errors as well.*
>>
>
> To me that sounds like very impressive performance. If you were working 
> with a human colleague who did the same thing would you hesitate in saying 
> he was exhibiting some degree of intelligence? 
>
> * > It is a very good emulator of intelligence.*
>>
>
> What's the difference between being intelligent and emulating intelligence?
>   It must be more than the degree of squishiness of the brain.
>  
>
>> *> It also is proving to be a decent first check on my work. It might be 
>> said it passes some criterion for Turing tests, though I have often thought 
>> this idea was old fashioned in a way. *
>>
>
> Well, it is old I'll grant you that. Turing didn't invent the "Turing 
> Test", he just pointed out something that was ancient, that we use 
> everyday, and was so accepted and ubiquitous that nobody had given it much 
> thought before. I'm sure you, just like everybody else, has at one time or 
> another in your life encountered people who you consider to be brilliant 
> and people who you consider to be stupid, when making your determination, 
> if you did not use the Turing Test (which is basically just observing 
> behavior and judging if it's intelligent ) what method did you use ? How in 
> the world can you judge if something is intelligent or not except by 
> observing if it does anything intelligent?
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> oi2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72224ca5-ecf8-49a0-8cd3-ad2f4bf04db2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:33 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I* have found 2 mistakes it* [GPT-4] *has made. It has caught me on a few
> errors as well.*
>

To me that sounds like very impressive performance. If you were working
with a human colleague who did the same thing would you hesitate in saying
he was exhibiting some degree of intelligence?

* > It is a very good emulator of intelligence.*
>

What's the difference between being intelligent and emulating intelligence?  It
must be more than the degree of squishiness of the brain.


> *> It also is proving to be a decent first check on my work. It might be
> said it passes some criterion for Turing tests, though I have often thought
> this idea was old fashioned in a way. *
>

Well, it is old I'll grant you that. Turing didn't invent the "Turing
Test", he just pointed out something that was ancient, that we use
everyday, and was so accepted and ubiquitous that nobody had given it much
thought before. I'm sure you, just like everybody else, has at one time or
another in your life encountered people who you consider to be brilliant
and people who you consider to be stupid, when making your determination,
if you did not use the Turing Test (which is basically just observing
behavior and judging if it's intelligent ) what method did you use ? How in
the world can you judge if something is intelligent or not except by
observing if it does anything intelligent?

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

oi2






>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1rxYau45v2Vx1q8xfvpZKexo03nvfRAuuGqfELMUh49A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have found 2 mistakes it has made. It has caught me on a few errors as 
well. GPT-4 has a vast database it can access. It clearly can reference a 
fair number of theories, papers and authors. It is a very good emulator of 
intelligence. It also is proving to be a decent first check on my work. It 
might be said it passes some criterion for Turing tests, though I have 
often thought this idea was old fashioned in a way. 

LC

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 6:50:33 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:10 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > I spent some time on GPT-4 this afternoon. I wrote about a topic that 
>> was leading to an inference I had made. Before I wrote on that inference 
>> GPT made the same inference.
>
>
> Wow! Would I be correct in saying that you gave GPT-4 your own personal 
> Turing Test and it passed because you couldn't tell if you were conversing 
> with a machine or a human being with *at least* average intelligence?
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 8yh
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f0dbf5db-59c3-4c0a-875c-073b998e34f2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:10 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I spent some time on GPT-4 this afternoon. I wrote about a topic that was
> leading to an inference I had made. Before I wrote on that inference GPT
> made the same inference.


Wow! Would I be correct in saying that you gave GPT-4 your own personal
Turing Test and it passed because you couldn't tell if you were conversing
with a machine or a human being with *at least* average intelligence?

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8yh

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2zo-9O89DhR2Oyp4%2B8Qh_kO9WFZL%3Dvi8THLQg-zTsxGg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I spent some time on GPT-4 this afternoon. I wrote about a topic that was 
leading to an inference I had made. Before I wrote on that inference GPT 
made the same inference.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d1ca58a-9d42-4ab1-a821-ed59141657e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

Quantum computers extend computability into bounded quantum polynomial
sets. These are more extensive than bounded polynomial algorithms, and
faster.

As for neural organoids, these could be used to repair brain tissue damaged
by stroke or other event. As for interfacing them with computers, that
begins to look a bit like the Daleks on Dr. Who.

LC

On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 11:32 PM  wrote:

> What scientific question needs to be urgently answered is, "What if
> anything, will the Impact of combining these LMM's or Other types of AI
> do when these get Loaded upon Quantum Computers (Yes, the super Cold ones)
> + a regular computer Network???"
> Moderna and IBM to Explore Quantum Computing and Generative AI for mRNA
> Science (yahoo.com)
> <https://finance.yahoo.com/news/moderna-ibm-explore-quantum-computing-11302.html>
>
>
> Also, what if anything will occur if and when we hook the Above (3) into
> Brain Organelles??
>
> 'Organoid intelligence' could create brain cell-led computers | CNN
> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/world/brain-computer-organoids-scn/index.html>
>
> Does anyone get the willies concerned that we're doing Dr. Mengele with
> these pursuits? The later question, especially? Will humans develop from
> these organelles, without bodies?
>
> To be blunt, I am the most ardent into getting machinery to produce new
> and improved inventions.
> So much so, that I'd endorse the printing of money, or electron pulses to
> the bank accounts of Researchers to blast our technology 100 years ahead.
> Because, this would be an even more, Massive, ROI (return on investment)!!!
>
> Medically, for 100%, Energy? safe bet! Bio-grown meats and fabrics? For
> sure, you animal-lovers!  So, I am loathe to do do anything that slows us
> down!! But I had to ask!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, May 7, 2023 7:10 pm
> Subject: Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM
>
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:21:50 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>
> *> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum
> mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it
> suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed
> ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky
> and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.*
>
>
>
> Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the
> Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years
> ago would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human
> being?  And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is
> nothing but a glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to
> compute what the next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational
> person who held that view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would
> change their opinion of it, but some people are not rational and they will
> continue to whistle past the graveyard.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> wes
>
>
>
> I have gone way beyond this. I have also found a couple of errors that GPT
> made. It is fairly remarkable though, and it is curious as to where this
> can go. Supposedly GPT-5 will be here by year's end.
>
> As for GPT-4 being sentient I am actually rather agnostic on that.
>
> LC
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAAFA0qpFL6Cgj_cnhfdC97rOx8cyKy0Rh77y%2Bzt9MU7xrCEg7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

What scientific question needs to be urgently answered is, "What if anything, 
will the Impact of combining these LMM's or Other types of AI do when these get 
Loaded upon Quantum Computers (Yes, the super Cold ones) + a regular computer 
Network???"Moderna and IBM to Explore Quantum Computing and Generative AI for 
mRNA Science (yahoo.com)

Also, what if anything will occur if and when we hook the Above (3) into Brain 
Organelles?? 
'Organoid intelligence' could create brain cell-led computers | CNN

Does anyone get the willies concerned that we're doing Dr. Mengele with these 
pursuits? The later question, especially? Will humans develop from these 
organelles, without bodies? 
To be blunt, I am the most ardent into getting machinery to produce new and 
improved inventions.So much so, that I'd endorse the printing of money, or 
electron pulses to the bank accounts of Researchers to blast our technology 100 
years ahead. Because, this would be an even more, Massive, ROI (return on 
investment)!!!
Medically, for 100%, Energy? safe bet! Bio-grown meats and fabrics? For sure, 
you animal-lovers!  So, I am loathe to do do anything that slows us down!! But 
I had to ask!

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, May 7, 2023 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:21:50 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:


> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
> mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
> suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
> ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky and 
> it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.

 Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the 
Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years ago 
would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human being?  
And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is nothing but a 
glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to compute what the 
next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational person who held that 
view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would change their opinion of 
it, but some people are not rational and they will continue to whistle past the 
graveyard.
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
wes



I have gone way beyond this. I have also found a couple of errors that GPT 
made. It is fairly remarkable though, and it is curious as to where this can 
go. Supposedly GPT-5 will be here by year's end.
As for GPT-4 being sentient I am actually rather agnostic on that.
LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1468265326.2912130.1683520377087%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:21:50 AM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

*> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky 
and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.*


 
Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the 
Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years 
ago would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human 
being?  And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is 
nothing but a glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to 
compute what the next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational 
person who held that view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would 
change their opinion of it, but some people are not rational and they will 
continue to whistle past the graveyard.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

wes



I have gone way beyond this. I have also found a couple of errors that GPT 
made. It is fairly remarkable though, and it is curious as to where this 
can go. Supposedly GPT-5 will be here by year's end.

As for GPT-4 being sentient I am actually rather agnostic on that.

LC


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/167fd892-92ef-4709-b38f-3e4699cb8de8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[John Clark]

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:03 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum
> mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it
> suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed
> ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky
> and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.*
>


Holy Singularity Batman, you're right! I think we can safely say that the
Turing Test has been passed. If you had this online conversation 10 years
ago would you have had any doubt that you were communicating with a human
being?  And to think, some very silly people still maintain that GPT-4 is
nothing but a glorified autocomplete program that just uses statistics to
compute what the next word in a sentence most probably is. Any rational
person who held that view and then read your conversation with GPT-4 would
change their opinion of it, but some people are not rational and they will
continue to whistle past the graveyard.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wes






>
>
> Einstein advanced the equivalence principle. In there it is 1) not
> possible to distinguish between an inertial frame in flat spacetime from a
> sufficiently local inertial frame falling in a gravity field, and 2) the
> accelerated frame in flat spacetime is equivalent to the surface
> acceleration against gravity on a planet or hard gravitating body. Can it
> then be said that two entangled particles in spacetime, whether flat or
> with a curvature have that entanglement conserved?
>
>
>
> GPT-4 answer: The equivalence principle in general relativity states that
> the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of
> acceleration. It does not make any specific statement about the
> conservation of entanglement between two particles in spacetime, whether in
> flat or curved spacetime.
>
> Entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that describes the
> correlation between two or more particles, even when they are separated by
> large distances. The conservation of entanglement is a fundamental property
> of quantum mechanics, which holds true regardless of the presence of
> gravity or the curvature of spacetime.
>
> Therefore, it can be said that entanglement between two particles is
> conserved in both flat and curved spacetime, as long as there is no
> external interaction that disturbs or breaks the entanglement. The effects
> of gravity, as described by the equivalence principle, do not affect the
> conservation of entanglement between two particles.
>
>
>
> Good, this is what I concluded as well. Then to take this further. Given
> an EPR pair, where Bob remains far from the black hole and Alice is in a
> freely falling frame into the black hole, there are then two
> interpretations of events. Alice will consider the entanglement with Bob as
> continuing. Bob on the other hand will, due to red-shifting on tortoise
> coordinates and that Alice’s time is dilated asymptotically to a crawl,
> that his EPR pair is entangled with the black hole. The two perspectives
> are effectively equivalent to each other.
>
>
>
> GPT-4 ans:
> Yes, you are correct. According to the equivalence principle, there is no
> difference between a uniform acceleration and being in a gravitational
> field. Therefore, for Bob, who is far away from the black hole, the
> entanglement between his particle and Alice's particle will be affected by
> the gravitational field of the black hole. This will cause the entangled
> state to evolve differently than it would in a flat spacetime.
>
> On the other hand, for Alice, who is in a freely falling frame into the
> black hole, there is no gravitational force acting on her. From her
> perspective, the entanglement between her particle and Bob's particle will
> continue to evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
>
> These two perspectives are indeed equivalent, even though they appear to
> be different. Bob's observations can be explained by the effects of the
> gravitational field on his particle's evolution, while Alice's observations
> can be explained by the absence of a gravitational force on her particle's
> evolution.
>
> It is worth noting that the details of the evolution of the entangled
> state in this scenario are highly dependent on the specific setup and
> initial conditions. Therefore, the specific outcomes of the two
> perspectives may differ in different situations. However, the equivalence
> principle ensures that both perspectives are equally valid and consistent
> with the laws of physics.
>
>
>
> This then means that Bob and Alice have different subjective
> interpretations of the same physics. Alice observes no apparent difference
> with standard quantum mechanics. Bob on the other hand is uncertain of the
> status of the entangled state. The tortoise 

conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky 
and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.


Einstein advanced the equivalence principle. In there it is 1) not possible 
to distinguish between an inertial frame in flat spacetime from a 
sufficiently local inertial frame falling in a gravity field, and 2) the 
accelerated frame in flat spacetime is equivalent to the surface 
acceleration against gravity on a planet or hard gravitating body. Can it 
then be said that two entangled particles in spacetime, whether flat or 
with a curvature have that entanglement conserved?

 

GPT-4 answer: The equivalence principle in general relativity states that 
the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of 
acceleration. It does not make any specific statement about the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles in spacetime, whether in 
flat or curved spacetime.

Entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that describes the 
correlation between two or more particles, even when they are separated by 
large distances. The conservation of entanglement is a fundamental property 
of quantum mechanics, which holds true regardless of the presence of 
gravity or the curvature of spacetime.

Therefore, it can be said that entanglement between two particles is 
conserved in both flat and curved spacetime, as long as there is no 
external interaction that disturbs or breaks the entanglement. The effects 
of gravity, as described by the equivalence principle, do not affect the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles.

 

Good, this is what I concluded as well. Then to take this further. Given an 
EPR pair, where Bob remains far from the black hole and Alice is in a 
freely falling frame into the black hole, there are then two 
interpretations of events. Alice will consider the entanglement with Bob as 
continuing. Bob on the other hand will, due to red-shifting on tortoise 
coordinates and that Alice’s time is dilated asymptotically to a crawl, 
that his EPR pair is entangled with the black hole. The two perspectives 
are effectively equivalent to each other.

 

GPT-4 ans:
Yes, you are correct. According to the equivalence principle, there is no 
difference between a uniform acceleration and being in a gravitational 
field. Therefore, for Bob, who is far away from the black hole, the 
entanglement between his particle and Alice's particle will be affected by 
the gravitational field of the black hole. This will cause the entangled 
state to evolve differently than it would in a flat spacetime.

On the other hand, for Alice, who is in a freely falling frame into the 
black hole, there is no gravitational force acting on her. From her 
perspective, the entanglement between her particle and Bob's particle will 
continue to evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

These two perspectives are indeed equivalent, even though they appear to be 
different. Bob's observations can be explained by the effects of the 
gravitational field on his particle's evolution, while Alice's observations 
can be explained by the absence of a gravitational force on her particle's 
evolution.

It is worth noting that the details of the evolution of the entangled state 
in this scenario are highly dependent on the specific setup and initial 
conditions. Therefore, the specific outcomes of the two perspectives may 
differ in different situations. However, the equivalence principle ensures 
that both perspectives are equally valid and consistent with the laws of 
physics.

 

This then means that Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics. Alice observes no apparent difference 
with standard quantum mechanics. Bob on the other hand is uncertain of the 
status of the entangled state. The tortoise coordinates with t’ = t – 2m 
log|r – 2m|, and the associated red-shifting means that Bob sees this 
bipartite entanglement dissolve into an entanglement with all the entangled 
states on the Planck region above the event horizon.

 

GPT-4 ans: Yes, that's correct. Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics due to their different perspectives in 
the presence of the black hole. From Alice's perspective, the entangled 
state between her particle and Bob's particle continues to evolve according 
to standard quantum mechanics. However, from Bob's perspective, the 
entangled state appears to dissolve into an entanglement with the black 
hole itself.

As you mentioned, the redshift factor associated with Bob's perspective 
causes the entangled state to evolve in a way that appears to dissolve the 
entanglement between Alice's particle and Bob's particle. This can be 
thought of as an