On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/12/13 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
> Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently
agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is
No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him
about it. In
the many worlds interpretation neither choice nor consciousness nor mind in
have anything to do with the way the laws of physics work, however in order
devise a experiment that attempts to prove that Many Worlds makes better
predictions than other interpretations where mind is important it is
necessary to incorporate mind into the experiment.
Which agrees with my point that the experiment is only designed to test the
theory that consciousness collapses the wave-function. Rejecting Wigner's
interpretation (which he dropped later anyway) is not the same as proving
Isn't that prove wrong any collapse explanations ?
No it just proves wrong theories that say the conscious knowledge of the quantum computer,
which is not erased, collapses the wf. That's why I say I'd like to see the experimental
setup or at least the theoretical Hamiltonian. Suppose the interference fringes are
observed - then we say OK erasing the which-way, but keeping the some-way, information is
possible. Suppose the interference fringes aren't observed - then we say it isn't really
possible (with the given experiment anyway) to erase the which-way information and keep
the some-way information. Although the AI doesn't know which-way, the information is 'out
there' just like in the buckyball Young's slit experiment.
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