On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:44 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
Within this model, Bob does not decohere until that time he is
told what Alice has found.
That is simply not true. Decoherence is not subject to a particular
person's knowledge. When Alice and Bob are next to each other, they
are jointly entangled with a particular result.
I think that this needs to be discussed in more detail. Decoherence
does not cause a superposition to get reduced to either one of the
two possible outcomes. Given what Bob knows, he cannot locate
himself in either sector. If this were not true then given
everything Bob is aware of, he could get to better odds than 50-50
for guessing the spin. But that implies information transfer to
something his brain can access.
One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the
concept of a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum
mechanics. This is seen to be particularly important in quantum
cosmology, but it is relevant everywhere. You seem to be wanting to
turn the clock back and make consciousness, and conscious knowledge
of events, central to your interpretation.
The branches form under decoherence for every quantum event. Whether
you know about it or not, or know the result of the experiment, is
irrelevant. Schrödinger's cat is definitely dead in one branch, and
definitely alive in the other, whether you open the box or not.
That is MWI in standard QM. If you want to propose another theory in
which consciousness is central, then that is up to you. But you have
to show that your alternative theory reproduces all the observed
results of quantum mechanics before you can say that you are right
and everyone else is wrong.
Everett use the theory of Mechanism for consciousness, and yes, that
is the main reason to prefer MWI than an hardly intelligible action of
consciousness on matter, but I think Saibal was using only the usual
first person/third person distinction, that Mechanism implied (if I
got his point).
Bruno
So, it boils down to decoherence acting on a microscopic degrees of
freedom, while brains and computers must be robust systems that
would not function well if they would be affected by such effects.
Thermal noise would make computing impossible.
If you have robust bitstrings that are only going to be affected by
information present in the environment at a sufficiently coarse
grained level, then that bitstring is never going to pick up any
information about Alice's result other than via direct
communication or any leakage of information e.g. if Bob is in to
cold reading, or if there are other correlations at the macroscopic
level that Bob can exploit.
So, we have two decohered parallel worlds, but Bob is mentally
identical in the two sectors despite decoherence having split his
body. As long as he cannot access that information, he is the same
person in both sectors.
And the rock on the ground outside the laboratory is the same in
both decohered worlds. That is irrelevant to the existence of such
worlds in MWI. As I said, Bob's knowledge or lack of knowledge is
irrelevant to the fact that locality implies there are worlds in
which angular momentum is not conserved in the scenario that I have
outlined.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
