> On 28 Apr 2018, at 22:13, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2018 3:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: John Clark <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> > many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is erased. >>> Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again! >>> >>> We won't know if Deutsch is wrong until the experiment is actually >>> performed as I expect it will be sometime in the next few decades, but at >>> least he made a stand and you did too, he predicted interference bands >>> will be seen and you predicted there will be no such bands. So much for >>> the idea that the MWI is not testable. >>> >>> John K Clark >> >> The trouble with this is that we do not know what is actually being tested. >> Is it MWI, or is it the idea that a measurement can be reversed? >> >> Bruce > > We know a measurement can be quantum erased. The question is whether it can > be quantum erased while the information showing that it was made is not > erased. > > This should be a question that has an answer in Bruno's theory of "comp”.
Well, thanks. But I am not quite sure why you say this. Normally the quantum physical explanation should be recovered from “comp”, but we are far from this. In arithmetic, the interference must come from the fact that we (the universal machine) have no means to distinguish the computations which differs below our substitution level. Somehow, if the path of an electron does not change our mind state, then we must sum on all path, which leads to an explosion of possible histories. Fortunately, the self-referential correctness imposed some quantum, or quantum-like, structure on such sets, and intuitively we can hope to get the Feynman phase randomisation to diminish the probability of “aberrant” histories, but I doubt we can get that directly from the comp intuition, and much progress must been made on the "logics of matter” imposed by incompleteness (that is the logic of []p&p, []p&<>t, …, with “p” semi-computable. I just hope the arithmetical quantum logic(s) to be constrained enough so that Gleason theorem will be applicable, in some “normal” future(s). If that is shown impossible, then we will have evidences that “comp” is false, (or that we are in a Bostrom-like malevolent simulation but this is trivial and can be added to any experimental verification (ultimate epicycles). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
