On 9/8/2012 10:08 AM, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.
The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.
This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of "generalized
It does, because you can't simulate indefinite entanglement. No matter how
many entangled systems you simulate, you are always missing the entanglement
of this combined system to another (which may be as crucial as the system
itself, because it may lead to a very different unfoldment of events).
A practically digital substitution (which is assumed in COMP) could be
entangled with its surroundings, which may be very different than the
entanglement of a brain (or a generalized brain) with its surroundings. The
substitution may not only fail because the person itself is not preserved,
but also because the world was not preserved (the person would certainly
complain to the doctor if the world suddenly is substantially different - if
there is still a doctor left, that is).
And if you say that we can simulate this entanglement as well, the
entanglement of this system to outside systems may again lead to the
emulation to be not correct at all from a broader view (etc...). At every
step the emulation may actually become more false, because more of the
multiverse/universe is changed.

We can argue that all these things may not be relevant (though I think they
are), but in any case it makes the reasoning shaky.


    Does not entanglement not look like a form of diagonalization?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
No matter how good your simulation is, it is never going to change its
surroundings without using I/O.
QM does not allows this, unless you bring by the collapse of the wave.
Clearly QM does allow that measurement in one object "changes" another
object (we can argue with the word "change", because the effect is
non-causal). This is even experimentally verified.
MW doesn't change this, it is the same with regards to correlations between
classically non-interacting objects.





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