> On 15 Jan 2020, at 20:01, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:03:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Jan 2020, at 13:11, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself >> Daniela Frauchiger & Renato Renner >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 >> <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/ >> >> <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.
That raises the interesting question if GR + 2 bodies can be made Turing Universal. Usually, when a continuous system is not integrable, like Navier-Stoke equation in fluid dynamics (cf turbulence), I take it as an evidence that it is Turing Universal (or very near). That is not a priori true, as I imagine that we might be able to build (in some ad hoc ways) non integrable system which will not be Turing Universal. It is doubtful that such system, if they exist, could be linked to any “natural observable" phenomena. > 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. OK. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3167a6a9-2a8a-4419-87b5-ba4bbac12ed6%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3167a6a9-2a8a-4419-87b5-ba4bbac12ed6%40googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4C9C966B-0DF0-479F-8BE9-5F46D6E8E2D2%40ulb.ac.be.
