> On 19 Jun 2018, at 16:10, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 6/18/2018 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/2018 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On 17 June 2018 at 13:26, <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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 >> <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. > The only question is, why isn't it true for us? > > Jason > > > And you don't have wonder about Aaronson thinks, go check his blog. I'm > pretty sure he's posted about it. > > > He came quite close, in this blog post, but missed it: > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756 > <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756> > > >> >> QM also tells us that Wigner's friend, is no different from that "AI running >> on a quantum computer". > > I get kind of tire do being told that QM tells us this or that. QM is just > another theory. Ptolemy's theory told us the Sun went around the Earth. You > do realize that QM is inconsistent with GR? > > > If we had to choose between the two, my bet is the result would be a revision > to GR.
I agree. To change QM, and getting the correct spin measurement in all directions, you would need to de-linearise slightly the SWE, but this makes the many worlds able to interact (Weinberg showed this, and Plaga in this list a long time ago). Problem: it makes thermodynamical laws wrong. Well, it makes almost all physical laws wrong). Bruno > > 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] > <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.
