On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations.
>> Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible
an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus they are
which can be tested and differentiated.
> Except his proposed experiment relies on a hypothetical quantum
Yes but Deutsch argues, convincingly I thought, that the reason it's so
to test is not the Many World's theory's fault, the reason is that the
view says that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many
they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum
In Deutsch's experiment to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds
than this one a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal
has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer
detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went
The quantum mind now signs a document saying that it has observed each and
electron and knows what slit each electron went through. It is very
the document does not say which slit the electrons went through, it only
they went through one slit only, and the mind has knowledge of which one.
mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the memory of what slits the
electrons went through. But all other memories and the document remains
But why should I think this is possible? I'd like to see the actual
Hamiltonian that allows this.
And then the electrons continue on their way and hit the photographic
develop the photographic plate and look at it, if you see interference
the many world interpretation is correct.
No, it only means the 'consciousness collapses the wave-function' theory is
incorrect. It doesn't follow that MWI is correct.
If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what
Creating a record of it.
I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no
collapse then you have the MWI.
MWI has the same problem as decoherence theory (except it tries to ignore it): How or what
chooses the basis in which the reduced density matrix becomes approximately orthogonal and
what is the significance of it not being exact. Copenhagen said the choice is made by the
experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant
that his AI is conscious. Decoherence theory hopes to show it is some objective feature
of the experiment, e.g. the Schmidt decomposition and purification has been proposed
Neither has really said how to deal with the inexactness of orthogonality, but once you
assume you can ignore the off diagonal terms then QM just predicts probabilities, as Omnes
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at