On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> why do you prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional >>>>> Interpretation? >>>>> I see both as absurd. so I prefer to assume the wf is just epistemic, >>>>> and/or >>>>> that we have some holes in the CI which have yet to be resolved. AG >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. It's the simplest theory: "MWI" is just the Schrodinger equation, >>>> nothing else. (it doesn't say Schrodinger's equation only applies >>>> sometimes, >>>> or only at certain scales) >>>> >>>> 2. It explains more while assuming less (it explains the appearance of >>>> collapse, without having to assume it, thus is preferred by Occam's >>>> razor) >>>> >>>> 3. Like every other successful physical theory, it is linear, reversible >>>> (time-symmetric), continuous, deterministic and does not require faster >>>> than >>>> light influences nor retrocausalities >>>> >>>> 4. Unlike single-universe or epistemic interpretations, "WF is real" >>>> with >>>> MWI is the only way we know how to explain the functioning of quantum >>>> computers (now up to 51 qubits) >>>> >>>> 5. Unlike copenhagen-type theories, it attributes no special physical >>>> abilities to observers or measurement devices >>>> >>>> 6. Most of all, theories of everything that assume a reality containing >>>> all possible observers and observations lead directly to >>>> laws/postulates of >>>> quantum mechanics (see Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing, Chapter 7 >>>> and >>>> Appendix D). >>>> >>>> Given #6, we should revise our view. It is not MWI and QM that should >>>> convince us of many worlds, but rather the assumption of many worlds (an >>>> infinite and infinitely varied reality) that gives us, and explains all >>>> the >>>> weirdness of QM. This should overwhelmingly convince us of MWI-type >>>> everything theories over any single-universe interpretation of quantum >>>> mechanics, which is not only absurd, but completely devoid of >>>> explanation. >>>> With the assumption of a large reality, QM is made explainable and >>>> understandable: as a theory of observation within an infinite reality. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> You forgot #7. It asserts multiple, even infinite copies of an observer, >>> replete with memories, are created when an observer does a simple quantum >>> experiment. So IMO the alleged "cure" is immensely worse than the >>> disease, >>> CI, that is, just plain idiotic. AG >>> >> It is important to make the distinction between our intuition and >> common sense and actual formal reasoning. The former can guide the >> latter very successfully, but the history of science teaches us that >> this is not always the case. You don't provide an argument, you just >> present your gut feeling as if it were the same thing as irrefutable >> fact. >> > > I think Scott Aaronson has the right attitude toward this: > > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=326 > > As such a strong believer in quantum computers (he's staked $100,000 of his own money on the future construction of large scale quantum computers), I would love to ask Scott Aaronson what he thinks about running a conscious AI on such a quantum computer. That trivially leads to "many worlds" at least as seen by that AI. QM also tells us that Wigner's friend, is no different from that "AI running on a quantum computer". Jason -- 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.
