> On 8 Aug 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8/8/2019 11:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:24 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 8/8/2019 3:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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? >> >> I think that thought must be essentially classical. Otherwise, according to >> MWI, we would not be aware of the classical world, but only of the state >> vector. It's the same reason Bohr insisted on a classical world for science >> to be possible. There must be definite sharable results. So I think this >> applies within a single brain as well as between Wigner and his friends. >> The interesting question is why are we aware of the projection or >> decoherence onto certain bases and not others, and could consciousness be >> realized differently? >> >> I agree human consciousness is the result of an effectively classical >> computation. >> >> This is why I insist that the quantum computer, (whose components represent >> many individual classical computations), can instantiate a multitude of >> individual brains, each potentially having a unique experience. >> >> Quantum computers can emulate any classical computation. If a brain >> emulated on a quantum computer answers "no" when asked the question "are you >> conscious?" while the same brain emulated on a Pentium III processor answers >> "yes" when asked the same question, then you have a violation of the >> Church-Turing thesis. This is a program that can determine something about >> its underlying hardware (whether its a classical or quantum computer). If >> instead, you hold that both emulations answer "yes", then you have a >> violation of the anti-zombie principle >> <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kYAuNJX2ecH2uFqZ9/the-generalized-anti-zombie-principle>. >> Either consequence is distasteful to me. > > If the quantum computer didn't decohere to a quasi-classcial mixture it would > answer "Yes and no." (to every question).
Two things: 1) it decoheres only *after* we did the Fourier transform which exploits the "parallel results” (which have been computed in each term of the starting superposition (I think of Shor algorithm). 2) It decoheres only relatively to me (and what I interact with, my environment), but everything remains “pure” in the “outsider” picture. Decoherence is only entanglement with my environment (including myself). Bruno > > Brent > >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjDUS9%2B4KJtDWsfMtVQPtkr0bPywLN%3D5ggfa6rRh%3DZCKw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjDUS9%2B4KJtDWsfMtVQPtkr0bPywLN%3D5ggfa6rRh%3DZCKw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d9244bf-e00f-0bed-f3b5-cfbeb1836e22%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d9244bf-e00f-0bed-f3b5-cfbeb1836e22%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/A2F1EDF0-D17B-4222-B755-DE312EA1ED4E%40ulb.ac.be.
