On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/7/2019 8:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/7/2019 2:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/7/2019 8:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> > This is made most clear in the case of a quantum computer. Where the >>> > quantum computer can be viewed as one WORLD (def 1) that contains many >>> > little worlds (def 2), where each computational trace constitutes its >>> > own little world, causally isolated from the rest. >>> >>> Except those computational traces DO NOT constitute little worlds. They >>> are not causally isolated. The whole function of the computer depends >>> on them interacting, i.e. interfering coherently. >>> >>> >> It depends on the algorithm. >> >> If, as in my neural net example, interference is not used, the many >> computations are causally isolated, and will remain so (FAPP) once I read >> the output bits. >> >> You seem to want it both ways. "Yes they are many worlds, but they're not >> entirely or always completely causally isolated, so they're not really >> separate worlds." >> >> >> You're the one who introduced worlds and little worlds. My point is just >> that doing computations with lots of qubits doesn't imply there are >> separate worlds in which the computations happen; in fact it requires the >> contrary if the computation is to come to a single conclusion. >> > > No disagreement with that, but my point all along is that "many > somethings" associated with the qubits in the quantum computer, can lead to > many minds which can have many experiences, when the quantum computer > executes computational traces which create conscious states. Do you > disagree with this? > > > No. As far as I know minds are classical like processes in brains. > Quantum logic gates are Turing complete. This means quantum computers can emulate any classical computation. So in certain algorithms, the components of the superposition are traces of distinct classical computations. > That's why you are never really "of two minds". Superpositions > corresponding to neurons firing and not-firing decohere far too quickly. > See Tegmark's paper. > > I'm aware of it. It's about decoherence times of biological neurons to disprove the Penrose idea that brains exploit quantum mechanics to somehow overcome incompleteness. The point of using a quantum computer in my example is that decoherence doesn't happen until after the computational traces have all been realized. If I understand your position correctly, you believe the distinct computational traces exist but that they're not consciousness, because you postulate decoherence at each step of the computation is necessary? Would this not make Wigner's friend into a zombie (or any AI or brain emulation performed on a quantum computer)? Does my clarification of the Turing completeness of Quantum logic gates do anything to amend your opinion? 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%2BBCJUiH16ost5cO66nqc1Rv0GoUzipN0QuwyxaYywCvZ88jvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
