On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/12/2019 1:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 9:21:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > *The EPR thought experiment, performed with electron–positron pairs. A > source (center) sends particles toward two observers, electrons to Alice > (left) and positrons to Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Measurements_on_an_entangled_state > > The A particle travels 10 feet to the A-detector (Alice). > The B particle travels 2.939e+14 miles* (50 light years) to the B-detector > (Bob). > > > Bob could be on another planet. Or on Earth, if the B particle path could > be bent around somehow via GR. > > Bob may be 30 years old. He hasn't yet been born when Alice gets the A > particle. > > > But my question is what is being tested in the experiment that isn't > tested when Bob is just down the hall. Are you concerned that the > entanglement will "get old" as the photon travels 50 light years (even > though it's proper time lapse is zero)? > > Brent > > > * calculation via Google > > > But with the phenomenon of "quantum entanglement" it occurs to me that > some *weak* form of both telepathy and precognition could occur: > > *Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators* > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0038-x > > But how weak, TBD. > > @philipthrift > >
I think I see what you mean. If Alice is 10 feet away to the west and Bob is 100 feet away to the east, then the A particle gets to Alice just a little faster than the B particle gets to Bob (assuming the two particles are traveling at the same speed). So Alice reacts to Bob-in-the-future -- but in this case it's a very short time interval look-ahead! @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0c85a38b-8b69-46e4-a870-51364a8b521c%40googlegroups.com.
