On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:13:29 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2018 , Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > *> Or it's proven that a quantum computer is not conscious.* > > > On Apr 27, 2018 , Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > * > The CI got a bad rap because some woo-woo merchants seized on the >> idea that is was consciousness that collapsed the wave-function; which was >> never what Heisenberg or Bohr said. * >> > > Well which is it? Is consciousness involved or is it not? The MWI says > conscious stuff involves the same laws of physics as everything else and > the Schrodinger wave equation means what it says. My intuition is the MWI > is correct but my intuition has been wrong before so we won't know for sure > until experiment tells us. > > John K Clark >
I wrote the following below in red to this list recently about the nature of entanglements and interpretations. I have to stress that quantum interpretations are not physics, but more in the way of metaphysical constructions we append to quantum mechanics to make the odd consequences of it more tractable to our intuitive understanding. This is whether the interpretation is Bohr's, Bohm's or Everett's and this includes a growing zoo of other interpretations. A sort of interesting one is the Montevideo interpretation of Pullen et al, and this is related to Penrose's idea of gravitation and the R-process. Deutsch imposes what is in effect a local hidden variable into MWI that he proposes will upon detection verify MWI as the true interpretation. I suspect nothing of this sort will happen. LC It is maybe wrong to say that either the classical or quantum are somehow prior. We are used to thinking of the classical world as being in part built up from the quantum world. We often think of the classical world as a large action or many Planck units of action limit on quantum physics. Yet the relationship between the quantum and classical worlds is a bit strange. Often we quantize a classical field theory. This is certainly the case with QED. though intrinsic spin and Fermi-Dirac fields are not so derived. The question of quantum gravity may well have to do with a question over this; is quantum gravitation a quantization of classical general relativity, or is classical GR some limit of some systems that is entirely different. This connects in many ways the nature of gauge symmetries and entanglement. Gauge symmetries are redundancies, a set of moduli in a space or moduli space are all redundant with respect to field configurations on the base manifold. Entanglements by analogy are a redundancy with respect to the quantum information in states; the change or unitary processing of one state is copied with another. The Copenhagen interpretation is no more insane than many world interpretation. The difference is how one might want to think of the role of entanglement phase. In decoherence we think of entanglement phase, this sort of state redundancy, as diffused into the rest of the world. With black holes we may think of it being surrendered to a black hole, and in many ways black holes involve entanglement as a nonlocal symmetry that can only be controlled (or steered) locally. The locality is a form of gauge-like transformation of entanglement through spacetime. We may in such instances where it is impossible to track the entanglement phase just FAPP say it it lost and go with the CI of Bohr. If one in such circumstances works with MWI there is a far larger amount of "state entanglement accounting" that must be done that can be intractable. -- 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.
