On 30 May 2012, at 16:29, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:28 AM, alexalex <alexmka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just watched this google presentation done by a software engineer that
has done lots of reading on QM and QIT. He practically says that
entanglement is akin to measurement and he presents a experiment (not
undertaken yet and that involves some kind of quantum erasement using
polarisation filters) that would prove faster than light

I've searched the net. He seems not to be a nut. He denies that the
Copenhagen Interpretation is the correct one for describin reality and
he supports zero-worlds interpretation (quantum information theory,
we're all entangled qbits) as his prefered one; he doesn't deny
multiverse theories might be a valid explanation also.

Here si the video:

I've found his video interesting because there are some similiarities
between Russell Standish's bitstrings from the multiverse and the
entangled qbits that Ron Garret's is talking about.

What do you think about Ron Garret's video? Is it all just information
in a cosmic computer where physical reality is an illusion? Or does
even my question make sense in a quantum world?


I just finished watching the video. I found it fascinating. I liked when he said that we can say there are 0-physical universes, or many, but the idea that there is one (Copenhagen Interpretation) is untenable. It then becomes a matter of taste whether we say there are zero or many, as the math is consist with each.

Nice video. Personally I am not (yet) entirely sure that quantum information is "just" classical information on the complex, I think this is partially true, and theorem like Gleason theorem makes me believe that this is very plausible. It is a pretty picture of Everett QM. His account of measurement is illuminating. I intuit even possible relations with the question I asked ("does consciousness increase of decrease with "brain mass/entropy"). I have no definite answer on this.

It sounds like his zero-universe idea is a lot like the many-minds interpretation. His philosophical conclusions (which begin here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc&t=53m22s ) very much reminded me of Bruno's theory. I wonder what he would say regarding the idea of Comp, he is after all a computer scientist and not a physicist.

He is information theoretic minded, and, with respect to comp, has a coherent view of physics. Of course he does not seem aware of the necessity of that view once we postulate comp, and the fact that this necessitates to take all computations into account, (not just the quantum one) and justify the quantum interference from inside any self- justifying universal number.

Comp shows that the bit ---> qubit road is two sided.

Technically, due to diagonalization used to make the self-reference, you get the split between truth and justifiable, which provides a tool to distinguish the qualia and the quanta, as different but related mode of information.

I think Ron Garrett explains (very shortly but rightly ) the qubit -> bit justification. Comp provides a reverse of that justification, and this doubled by the communicable/non-communicable (G/G*) splitting: the bit -> quantum-bit, and the bit -> quale-bit*, with the explanation of the fact that the quale bit* can't be quantified and described (provably so in the ideal case of arithmetically self- referentially correct machine)

Comp forces, just to remain coherent, to extend Everett's way of embedding the observer into the physical wave, to his embedding in all arithmetical relations, by first person indeterminacy, with the advantage of explaining a fundamental role to the (universal) person points of view, and hopefully so, to justify QM or refuting comp, or weakening it or constraining it.

Ron Garret might think that classical is a bit trivial, but comp makes it into two type of weird qubits. So to speak.



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