On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:32 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:41 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:43 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:24 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MWI is irrelevant to this discussion, since the branches in MWI are >>>>>>> completely disjoint and form separate coherent worlds. Without overlap, >>>>>>> common sense notions of personal identity continue unchanged in all >>>>>>> branches separately. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we really ignore the global view? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we have no evidence that such a view exits or even makes any >>>>> sense. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why doesn't it? >>>> >>> >>> Because there is no "view from outside" as it were. >>> >> >> But this is exactly the situation for Wigner's friend, or when we use a >> quantum computer. >> > > The trouble is that Wigner's friend, or the cat for that matter, is a > classical, decohered, concept. So there are no quantum superpositions > involved. The fact that you can write the situation for Wigner's friend in > the form of a superposition does not mean that it actually is one. One > cannot interfere the different components. > >From the standpoint of Wigner, or the cat in the box, it remains in a superposition so long as it is isolated from the environment, does it not? What theory or interpretation of QM are you assuming when you say no superposition are involved? > > It would also be the case for any being in another universe choosing to >> analyze ours using the power of simulation. Do you not believe in an >> objective reality? >> > > Objective reality is that obtained by intersubjective agreement. By this > token, the "global wave function" has no objective existence. > What if Everett and Feynmann agree there is a global wave function, and choose to study the implications of that theory? > > > We speak of a superposition of a wave function whenever we speak of a >>>> system separated from an external environment. Can we not view the whole >>>> universe this way? Feynman and Everett thought we could, and Wheeler >>>> thought so on Tuesdays. >>>> >>> >>> Argument from authority is no argument in this case, because it makes no >>> sense to view the whole universe in this way. There is no "person" who sees >>> the global wave function. >>> >> >> Nor is there any person who sees beyond the horizon of a black hole. But >> we can use our best theories to describe that is happening there. Why >> can't we do the same for the global view? >> > > Poor analogy. We can readily see what is beyond the horizon of a black > hole -- just jump in and look. We can't do anything to obtain your required > "global view" because we are restricted to having only "relative state" > views, even with Everett. > If you acknowledge they are relative, then what are they relative to? The other views. Is it not worth ascribing a name to the total set of mutually relative views? > > > According to Everettt, persons and quantum phenomena are relative to >>> particular branches of the wave function. >>> >> >> Is there a wave function for the universe as a whole? >> > > Who knows. I find the concept somewhat dubious -- over-enthusiastic > extrapolation from simple laboratory experiments. > So you think Schrodinger's equation is wrong? Often the most marvelous consequences revealed themselves through simple laboratory experiments. > > > What if we want to consider cases like Wigner's friend? Or cases where we >>>>>> emulate brains in quantum computers? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What about such cases? Despite David Deutsch, these do not prove the >>>>> truth of MWI. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No but it casts significant doubt on the single world view, which >>>> cannot account for them. >>>> >>> >>> The single world view can account for these easily, so such cases >>> provide no evidence for MWI. >>> >> >> Where do the 10^1000 intermediate computational states occur in the >> single universe view of a quantum computer factoring a big semiprime number? >> > > Quantum computers work by interference of quits, and such interference can > only take place in one world -- different worlds are orthogonal. The fact > that one can analyse a quantum computer in a particular basis which can be > represented as a series of parallel computations does not mean that this is > actually what happens. Heuristic constructs seldom correspond to reality. > None of this comes anywhere close to addressing my question. > > > >> Superpositions exist in a single world. If we form multiple worlds via >>>>> decoherence, then the worlds are, by definition, orthogonal, so there is >>>>> no >>>>> possibility of their ever recombining. David Deutsch got this wrong many >>>>> times. Quantum computers work by interference of qbits -- so they must all >>>>> exist in the same world. A conscious quantum computer does not experience >>>>> other worlds. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you fed in as input, qubits prepared to be in a superposition using >>>> Hadamard gate, then the conscious mind would experience many states, >>>> simultaneously. >>>> >>> >>> Demonstrate that by actually doing it. >>> >> >> I described the process. We lack the technology to do this today, but it >> is exactly what our current theories suggest would happen. >> > > Suggestions are not reality, and I doubt that the theories do actually > suggest this. > > >> Scott Aaronson, an expert in quantum computing agreed that if the >> computer program is conscious, then one so-prepared on a quantum computer >> would realize multiple conscious states simultaneously. >> > > Argument from authority. Scott Aronson can provide no more evidence for > this that you can. > I am not saying it is true because Scott Aarson says it is true, I am saying it is a consequence of the theory (and if there were an obvious flaw in the reasoning it is likely Scott would have identified it). You have not indicated any flaw in the reasoning; only expressed your own personal doubt. On what those doubts are based, I have no idea. > > >> Can you show any flaw in the reasoning? >> > > Consciousness is a classical phenomenon and as such cannot participate in > a true quantum superposition. > If consciousness is the result of a classical computation (as I assume in the above reasoning), then the superposition realizes those multiple parallel classical computations, hence you get the multiple points of view. > The fact that anything done by a quantum computer can also be done by a > classical Turing machine proves this beyond any doubt: you cannot have > superpositions in a classical machine. You can simulate them, but then a > simulation of a rain storm does not make you wet. > > The superposition is irrelevant for consciousness, but the superposition is relevant to the thought experiment. The superposition is what implies the multiple unique states of achieved by the computation, and these multiple states create multiple unique conscious viewpoints. To make my example more clear, let's assume a simple neural net trained for image recognition manifests some basic form of "protoconsciousness". We then initialize a set of 10,000 input qubits to each be in a superposition of (1 and 0). These input registers represent a 100x100 pixel black and white image. The neural network is then run on the quantum computer and processes the random image for image recognition, and matches it to the word that scores most highly from what it sees and places this word in an output register to be read. Do you agree that: 1. There are 2^10,000 possible results from reading the 10,000 qubits? 2. The execution of the neural net on the quantum computer processes each of these 2^10,000 possible images? 3. Before reading the output register, those output bits are in a superposition of every possible word the neural net is trained to identify? 4. If "protoconsciousness" can be ascribed to this neural net, then this consciousness perceived each of the 2^10,000 possible images? 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiP8fSMaSVdcRtb7b4GcfF5uPDBBZc1a3gXFAEfWqTG%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
