On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 2:55:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/12/2019 11:26 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> And that experiment has been done:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
>
> Brent
>
Right. And a matter o scale
* Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators*
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0038-x
to get to telepathy and precognition. :)
@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5c265af-a5e9-41f0-bc71-9f03f668f9e3%40googlegroups.com.
