On 5/11/2019 6:58 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 5/11/2019 4:16 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 5/11/2019 3:45 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan
wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?
In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and
precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense
that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create
cases in which spatially and temporally separated
consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local
AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being
explained ?
I doubt telepathy, but I do have a low-level precognition
thought experiment handy:
In the typical EPR experiment setup, particle A goes one
way, and particle B goes another way, to detector-A and
detector-B respectively.
Now particles A and B are "entangled" (quantum-mechanically)
, so that detector-B settings will stochastically influence
what detector-A detects (and vice versa).
Now suppose detector-A is placed in a person's brain (not
far away) in such a way that particle A (via detector-A)
influences a neuron or two, but detector-B is light years
(traveling distance) away. Can detector-B settings made
years in the future influence what the person's neurons do
in the present?
Why make it impossible to perform by placing B far away? The
only relevant condition is whether Bob's setting was made
space-like or time-like relative to Alice's. And that kind
of experiment has been done. There is correlation per QM.
Brent
Huh? I claimed it was possible to perform. Not impossible to perform.
You claim we can send Bob light years away to perform this
experiment?? How?
And why bother since Aspect has already done it with Bob selecting
his setting space-like relative to Alice's? The case in which
Bob's setting is done in Alice's future light cone has been done
too, but isn't very interesting since Alice could then influence
Bob's setting. Are you testing whether Alice's neurons will
agree with Alice's instruments? I don't see what you're getting at?
Brent
No. Bob could be someone on another planet (Bob will in the future of
that other planet).
Or the idea already discussed, that the B particle could go out into
space and heavy masses could bend its path around and it returns to
Earth. In the future.
In any case, Bob is someone in the future, not the present.
So suppose Alice, in her lab makes a setting and measures her entangled
particle. The she walks down the hall to Bob's lab and says, "Ok, Bob
you are in the future of my setting and measurements. Go ahead and do
your thing." What difference is there between that and Bob is on
another planet? He's in Alice's future light cone.
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].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/904045a4-8963-55b5-844a-f624d3f5a493%40verizon.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
