On 12/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
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
computation and
an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus they are
theories
which can be tested and differentiated.
> Except his proposed experiment relies on a hypothetical quantum
computer
that is conscious.
Yes but Deutsch argues, convincingly I thought, that the reason it's so
difficult
to test is not the Many World's theory's fault, the reason is that the
conventional view says that conscious observers obey different laws of
physics,
Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that
uses
quantum properties.
In Deutsch's experiment to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds
other
than this one a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal
plate that
has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer
has
detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went
through. The quantum mind now signs a document saying that it has observed
each
and every electron and knows what slit each electron went through. It is
very
important that the document does not say which slit the electrons went
through,
it only says that they went through one slit only, and the mind has
knowledge of
which one. Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the
memory of
what slits the electrons went through. But all other memories and the
document
remains undamaged.
But why should I think this is possible? I'd like to see the actual
mechanism or
Hamiltonian that allows this.
And then the electrons continue on their way and hit the photographic
plate. Now
develop the photographic plate and look at it, if you see interference
bands then
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
does?
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
http://ipg.epfl.ch/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=en:courses:2009-2010:qit:lect5quantinfo0910.pdf
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 says.
That works FAPP.
But there is no conceptual reason to ignore the off diagonal terms, given that they can
play role physically testable. It is instrumentalist.
But MWI has the same problem. There are superpositions of conscious states too, but the
cross trems are ignored FAPP just as in an instrumentalist interpretation. It essentially
boils down to the problem of explaining the classical worlds emergence from the quantum.
If you define a world by the transitive closure of interactions, then the linearity of
the SWE and the linearity of the tensor product entails the existence of the many
worlds. The many worlds is just the literal reading of QM applied to our world including us.
How I define a world's in a model only effects the model. There is no 'literal reading'
of QM that works in this world except FAPP. Maybe a successful theory of consciousness
will change that, but so far I see CTM as relying on the same FAPP diagonalization of
density matrices in a basis which is chosen - not predicted.
Brent
And I think QM itself, the wave, is already a literal reading of arithmetic by itself,
... but I can't convince people who believes in Something or Someone selecting their
realities and not the others.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12
--
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.
--
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.
