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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5c265af-a5e9-41f0-bc71-9f03f668f9e3%40googlegroups.com.
