On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 6/20/2018 9:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/19/2018 7:10 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Brent Meeker <[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]> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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? > If computationalism is true (which Aarson has defended), it will have an experience. > It won't be able to say what they are. > Sure it can, within its virtual reality it can say or do anything. Whether or not it can tell us what it sees is another question. I would say if we decide to cause the quantum computer to decohere and entangle ourselves with its state, we will hear what it is saying (but in each branch we will hear it say only one thing). > 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. > That is when quantum computers are used to obtain a single definite result in all branches. This is what can make quantum computers more powerful. But I am not using this, I am merely riding off the quantum computer's ability to maintain a large scale superposition by virtue of a quantum computer's ability to remain isolated from its environment while it computes what it does. 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.
