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.`

## Advertising

`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.`

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

A boost for quantum reality May 9, 2012 http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-boost-for-quantum-reality?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=47e1937043-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email [+]The authors show that wavefunctions are real physical states with ajoint measurement on n qubits, with the property that each outcomehas probability zero on one of the input states. Such a measurementcan 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 canprove that wavefunctions — the entity that determines theprobability 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 inquantum foundations in decades. The authors say that the mathematicsleaves no doubt that the wavefunction is not just a statisticaltool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system.Matt Leifer, a physicist at University College London who works onquantum information, says that the theorem tackles a big question ina simple and clean way. He also says that it could end up being asuseful as Bell’s theorem, which turned out to have applications inquantum information theory and cryptography.But it’s incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the theorem alsoraises a deeper question: could quantum mechanics be wrong?Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On thereality of the quantum state, Nature Physics, 2012, DOI:10.1038/nphys2309Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On thereality of the quantum state, 2011, arXiv:1111.3328v2---------------------------------------------- http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf 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 (thisversion, v2))Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory.It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agreeon what a quantum state represents. One possibility is that a purequantum state corresponds directly to reality. But there is a longhistory of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state)represents only knowledge or information of some kind. Here we showthat any model in which a quantum state represents mere informationabout an underlying physical state of the system must makepredictions 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 stateis interpreted as mere information about an objective physical stateof a system cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum theory. Theresult is in the same spirit as Bell's theorem[13], which statesthat no local theory can reproduce the predictions of quantumtheory. Both theorems need to assume that a system has a objectivephysical state [LAMBDA] such that probabilities for measurementoutcomes depend only on [LAMBDA].But our theorem only assumes this for systems prepared in isolationfrom the rest of the universe in a quantum pure state. This isunlike Bell's theorem, which needs to assume the same thing forentangled systems. Furthermore, our result does not assume localityin general. Instead we assume only that systems can be prepared sothat their physical states are independent. Neither theorem assumesunderlying determinism."--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.