On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then 
what
        does?  I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not 
happen.  And if
        there is no collapse then you have the MWI.

        Jason

    Hi,

        It seems to me that we would not observe any sign of a collapse in a 
local sense
    even if there actually was one. We only observe the end result, no the 
process. No?

Correct. But the CI says you can't learn the result of a measurement without the wave function collapsing. Actually it was never entirely defined when the collapse happened, or what did it, but it was supposed that for any observer to know a result it must have collapsed.

For DD's experiment to work, there must be two definite results which are definitely measured and observed., since the collapse never occurred and yet the observer recalled measuring a definite result.

I'm not clear on what you mean by two definite results. In order to detect an interference pattern you need to send many particles through Young's slits. So I assume the two results must be an ensemble for which there was no which-way observation by the conscious AI and another ensemble for which the observation was made for each particle, but then quantum-erased.

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to