On 12/11/2012 9:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born
good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a
deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to
the probabilities "deterministic" in arbitrary way doesn't strike
It is, as it explains interference, without adding something not
defined (apparatus, observer) not obeying QM (like with the collapse
needed to get one physical reality).
That sounds like prejudice against probabilistic theories. The
interference is inherent in the complex Hilbert space states. The
interference happens in one world. As Omnes says, you don't need
'collapse' you just need to accept that you have calculated
probabilities. That's what probability means - some state is
and others aren't.
How does Omnes explain the EPR experiment without collapse? It seems
to give up not only determinism, but also locality.
Also, what do you think Omnes would predict as the outcome for Deutsch's
In Deutsch's thought experiment, an atom, which has a determinate
state in one axis, 'left' for example, is passed through a
apparatus which has the possibility of measuring it in another
either spin 'up' or spin 'down' in this case. This means that the
then in a superposition of 'up' and 'down' states from the
an observer who has not yet become entangled with it. This
travels to the AI's artificial 'sense organ'. Here it is provided
options, it may be detected as either spin 'up' or spin 'down'. The
conscious mind then records the result. The collapse approach
that this will cause the atom to collapse into one determinate
either a determinate 'up' or 'down' (but not 'left' or 'right')
Everett approach predicts that the mind will branch into two, one
will record up and one down (but neither will record 'left' or
The whole process is then reversed so that the atom emerges from the
entrance to the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and the mind forgets which
it recorded. This process does not erase any of the AI's other
however, including the memory that they did record the atom to be
definite state. If a 'left-right' detector was placed at the
the Stern-Gerlach apparatus then the collapse approach predicts
will be detected as being in either a 'left' or 'right' state with
I think it is wrong in saying that the erasure of which-way information
I think is actually impossible for a consciousness, artificial or
will leave the atom in an up/down state.
Isn't that exactly what the quantum erasure experiment shows?
Quantum erasure requires that the which-way information be eliminated from
world. Once an AI consciousness gets the result I think that implies
with the world and after that the result can't be quantum erased.
What theory of consciousness are you operating under? CTM or something else?
I know Deutsch supposes a quantum computer AI can 'know' there was which-way
information even though the which-way information was quantum erased. But
that doubtful. And even if it's true, the 'reversal' may bring the atom
back to 'left'.
That is the proposed result that would prove MWI.
It doesn't prove MWI, it disproves "consciousness causes collapse"; which is a theory no
one holds anymore.
If the "left" state is restored always then the universe never collapsed, it split a
difference was observed, and a record of observing that difference was stored, then all
information pertaining to the result is erased such that the two universes recombine
(the split was undone, even though it should have collapsed because the difference was
Only in a Wignerian theory of collapse where 'observed' means by some magic (AI)
Why do you think it is impossible for a conscious process learn the result
have that result erased as in the quantum eraser experiment?
Because I think consciousness must be quasi-classical. Consciousness needs
memory and it needs to interact with its environment - together I think
it must be essentially classical as a computer.
In this case it has stable memory, and is able to interact with its environment, but
then all traces of its memory of the which-way result are erased.
It's the 'all traces' which I think make this impossible. But I'm open to seeing the
description of the quantum state evolution and how the erasure is accomplished. Has
Deutsch published one?
We operate with unstable memories and forget things, and yet are still
That's one of my reservations about Bruno's oft repeated assertion that he
proven that matter doesn't exist.
He says matter exists, but that it is not primitive. It can be explained in terms of
something more fundamental.
When pressed he allows that it may exist, but only derivatively within the
computations of the UD. But it seems to me likely that it, or something
it, must exist (derivatively of not) in order that consciousness exist; that
'matter' is necessary for consciousness of a human kind to exist.
I think it's appearance is probable for entities such as we who evolved.
I'm saying something more definite. That consciousness requires matter (i.e. a
quasi-classical world). This would entail that a pure quantum computer (all proposed
quantum computers have classical outputs - for obvious reasons) cannot be conscious.
You keep asking me about 'collapse', but Copenhagen's physical collapse
the same as Omnes epistemic collapse.
I am sorry. I don't feel I have a good understanding of what the
Omnes looks at it as a mathematical operation used in predicting
results. That means the 'collapse' is just a change in description, not a
If it's not a physical process and only a description of appearances, it sounds more
Is MWI just an abstract ensemble invented to give a picture of probability as
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at