Hi Richard,

It seems to me, as the author vaguely admit implicitly in the conclusion that this is just a very nice argument for Everett many- worlds. It is weird that they don't make it explicit.

I read it very quickly, though. It looks very nice, but "philosophically" it oscillates between Copenhagen (the collapse is physical) and the still Copenhagen (post EPR), ASSA sort of bayesianism applied to the QM waves, instead of the RSSA relative states and "worlds", which needs to be used with comp ... ... and then not just on the "physical" quantum wave, but on the more gigantic "arithmetical truth seen from inside".

Interesting paper(http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf), thanks. It can help those knowing QM to see that comp just extends Everett Many Worlds into Arithmetical Many (pieces of) Computations. You can see UDA that way.

This makes comp more problematical than usually thought (by materialist) because we have to extract the wave from a much more complex and deep reality. But there is a sort of algorithm provided by mathematical logic/computer science which gives quickly the machine's "big conceptual picture", analogous to UDA conclusion. The algorithm can be sum up by "running" an introspective simple Löbian machine (like Peano Arithmetic) locking inward, and describing what they can see and guess. That is technically possible as it has been pioneered by Gödel, Löb, many others up to Solovay who get the arithmetically complete G and G* (at the modal propositional level). Advantage: the split between G and G*, makes its intensional variants describing a general theory of qualia, among which the quanta are only the first person plural sharable part.

The mystic says that the Universe is in your Head.
I suggest to verify if the Universe is in the "Head" of the Universal Numbers. To be short.


On 09 May 2012, at 16:03, Richard Ruquist wrote:

A boost for quantum reality
May 9, 2012


The authors show that wavefunctions are real physical states with a joint measurement on n qubits, with the property that each outcome has probability zero on one of the input states. Such a measurement can be performed by implementing the quantum circuit shown above. (Credit: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph)

In a controversial paper in Nature Physics, theorists claim they can prove that wavefunctions — the entity that determines the probability of different outcomes of measurements on quantum- mechanical particles — are real states.

The paper is thought by some to be one of the most important in quantum foundations in decades. The authors say that the mathematics leaves no doubt that the wavefunction is not just a statistical tool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system.

Matt Leifer, a physicist at University College London who works on quantum information, says that the theorem tackles a big question in a simple and clean way. He also says that it could end up being as useful as Bell’s theorem, which turned out to have applications in quantum information theory and cryptography.

But it’s incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the theorem also raises a deeper question: could quantum mechanics be wrong?

Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, Nature Physics, 2012, DOI:10.1038/ nphys2309

Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, 2011, arXiv:1111.3328v2



On the reality of the quantum state

Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2011 (v1), last revised 7 May 2012 (this version, v2)) Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. But there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information of some kind. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system must make predictions which contradict those of quantum theory.

Excerpt: "In conclusion, we have presented a no-go theorem, which { modulo assumptions } shows that models in which the quantum state is interpreted as mere information about an objective physical state of a system cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum theory. The result is in the same spirit as Bell's theorem[13], which states that no local theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory. Both theorems need to assume that a system has a objective physical state [LAMBDA] such that probabilities for measurement outcomes depend only on [LAMBDA]. But our theorem only assumes this for systems prepared in isolation from the rest of the universe in a quantum pure state. This is unlike Bell's theorem, which needs to assume the same thing for entangled systems. Furthermore, our result does not assume locality in general. Instead we assume only that systems can be prepared so that their physical states are independent. Neither theorem assumes underlying determinism."

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar?hl=en .


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to