On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:03:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Jan 2020, at 13:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > *Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself* > Daniela Frauchiger & Renato Renner > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 > > Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental > processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable > beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested > experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the > question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. > The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ > quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are > themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this > presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular > measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the > opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all > derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that > quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a > straightforward manner. > > from > https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/ > > > > Classical Mechanics is Turing universal with only three bodies, and > quantum mechanics is Turing universal with 0-bodies. >
In classical mechanics only 2 body problems are integrable. There are many body problems that are integrable, but they form a small subset of general N-body problems. General relativity is not 2-body integrable in general, but only one body integrable. Quantum mechanics is not 1-body integrable so it computes a deterministic outcome of experiments. Quantum field theory is not zero body integrable with dynamics of the vacuum. LC > > And whatever is Turing universal can embed itself completely in itself, > like RA and PA are described entirely in all models of the arithmetical > reality (standard and non-standards included). > > I suspect the paper defends implicitly the many-worlds, by showing some > difficulties if we make disappear some branch/states in the physical > superpositions. > > As I have shown, quantum mechanics is a consequence of the consciousness > theory that all universal machines discovers when introspecting themselves > (in the modal shapes []p & <>t & p with p sigma_1, and with the modal > operator interpreted respectively by the arithmetical realisation of > “provable”, “consistent” and “true”. (Which can be justified by through > experiences or by using the classical definition already proposed by the > platonicians and the neoplatonicians. > > Many people seem to use the assumption that there *is* an (ontological) > physical universe, but that requires a non computationalist theory of mind. > > Those who believe in both materialism (there is an ontological universe) > and in Mechanism, have to explain how an ontological universe can make some > computations more conscious than their emulation in arithmetic, despite > being done at the right substitution level. That makes simply no sense. > > It is not that quantum mechanics is universally applicable. It is only > applicable in the theory of the observable, it typically failed on qualia, > although the universal machine discover QM as a special case of a more > general theory of qualia. A quanta is a sharable, first person plural, > quale. > > Bruno > -- 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/3167a6a9-2a8a-4419-87b5-ba4bbac12ed6%40googlegroups.com.
