On 10/20/2019 8:29 AM, smitra wrote:
On 19-10-2019 21:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
On 10/19/2019 8:49 AM, smitra wrote:
On 19-10-2019 00:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
On 10/18/2019 1:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:39 PM 'Brent Meeker'
<[email protected]> wrote:
_ > I want to know how the AI did the measurement_
The same way a human does.
In that case it would not be erasable because a human being is big and
hot and decoherence would be statistically irreversible. The point of
imaging a conscious AI in a quantum computer was that the quantum AI
could "know" things yet still quantum erase them.
It would be erasable in principle, because of local nature of the
laws of physics (I'm not talking about quantum non-locality here,
that's irrelevant here). When you perform a measurement and are
conscious about the results, this process unfolds in a finite amount
of time, therefore only a finite number of physical degrees of
freedom can have become entangled with the measured quantum system.
That number may be astronomically large, but it's ultimately just a
finite number.
So that would make it just as irreversible as thermodynamics. But in
fact it's even less reversible, because only a bit of information has
to be carried away at the speed of light, so that it is in-principle
irreversible, to prevent erasure.
It's not "in principle irreversible", just put the entire system in a
large box with reflecting boundary conditions. How could what we
experience when we do measurements possibly depend on what boundary
conditions are imposed very far away?
If we're in the perfect reflecting box (with perfectly rigid mirrors)
then we prevent the erasure, unless we can test our selves in an
orthogonal basis. So it's still irreversible.
This means that the entire process can be simulated by a quantum
computer that has only a finite number of qubits. It doesn't matter
that it cannot be done in practice for the argument that QM (where
everything including observers are described in a unified way)
implies the MWI. The only way to avoid the MWI is to assume that QM
is not exactly true.
You mean Everett's QM...whether it's QM is what the question. QM
worked just fine for 30yrs without Everett. And QBism is an
alternative that leaves QM exactly true; just interpreted differently.
Personally, I think the long sought theory that merges QM and GR may
modify QM by cutting off small probabilities based on the holographic
principle.
Cutting off small probabilities will by itself not get rid of "many
worlds". It can have the effect that different sectors become totally
independent. And that can then be invoked by people in debates, they
can leave out the "FAPP" qualifier when arguing that other worlds
don't have any physical effect.
Or that they are mere metaphysical artifacts of taking mathematics too
seriously.
Brent
--
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/4452901d-bb99-56e3-dec5-70dc1c54a90f%40verizon.net.
