On 6/20/2018 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 6/19/2018 7:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote:On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 6/18/2018 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com>> 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 <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.If it's so trivial maybe you can explain it. 1. A quantum computer is isolated from the environment so as to remain in a super position of many possible states. 2. Quantum computers are Turing universal, anything that can be programmed on a classical computer can be programmed on a quantum computer 3. Assuming Computational Theory of mind, a quantum computer can execute the same conscious program as "Brent Meeker's Brain" 4. The quantum computer can be arranged to entangle an unmeasured particle with Brent Meeker's quantum brain emulation, a) by feeding in spin up as an auditory tone in Brent Meeker's left auditory nerve b) by feeding in spin down as an auditory tone in Brent Meeker's right auditory nerve 5. The quantum brain simulation, being isolated from the environment, remains in a super position of the Brent Meeker brain emulation hearing an auditory tone in his left and right ears. You can repeat this process 30 times, with 30 different measurements of different electrons, and end up with over 1 billion Brent Meeker brain emulations, each remembering a different pattern of auditory tones. For the Brent Meeker quantum brain emulation, many worlds is definitely true.No. If decoherence occurs when there a many degrees of freedom in which to disperse entanglements then my brain is plenty big enough to decohere the signal; and you seem to assume this when supposing that I form different memories. Otherwise I wouldn't form any definite memory, my memory would merely exist in a superposition of a billion different patterns.That is the whole point of (and difficulty) of making a quantum computer. Its qubits must remain isolated from the rest of the environment such that it does not decohere while it is computing something. You seem to be postulating some upperbound on how large quantum computers can get. This is the exact thing Scott Aaronson has staked $100K on (that large scale quantum computers /can/ be built), which is why I find his antipathy towards MWI so paradoxical. If they can be built, then we can create many-experiences by running an AI emulation on a quantum computer, where some of the qubit registers are prepared in an undetermined state.
How will you know it has many experiences? It won't be able to say what they are. It won't be able to act intelligently in more than one world. Scott also notes that quantum computers solve problems by having destructive interference zero out the probability of incorrect solutions...which means computation all happens in the same world.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
