On 7/4/2021 5:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> /I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The
nonlocality of the gravitation field and the locality of QFT
means that with spacetime formed by entanglements of quantum
states or fields, that locality and nonlocality may be
shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum
state or entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of
as a nonlocal process./
Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier
imagining many worlds.I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy,
one needs to go through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to
avoid the obvious conclusion that many worlds exist.
> /This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such
a shift. /
I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires
extra terms be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more
difficult to solve and do not improve its ability to make
predictions of observable events, in fact it makes the
predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or Many Worlds
it is not compatible with Special Relativity.
>/There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic,
Copenhagen Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are
ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds or Bohm interpretations. I think
there is no decision procedure that can ever tell us which of
these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then say
which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your
choice. I suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure
which of these is correct,/
I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The
Ghost In The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be
very difficult, but not impossible, to performthat could decide
between Copenhagen and Many Worlds; and the reason it's so
difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the reason is that the
conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws of
physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we
need a mind that uses quantum propertiesand algorithms.
An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate
one at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons
hit a photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate
till the very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has
detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various
photons went through. After each photon passes the slits, but
before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
document saying that it has observed each and every photon and
knows which slit each photon went through. It is very important
that the document does NOT say which slit a photon went through,
it only says that it went through one slit and only one slit and
the mind has knowledge of which one. There is a signed document
to this effect for every photon it shoots.
Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its
memory of which slit any of the photons went through; the only
part remaining in the universe is the document which states that
each photon went through one and only one slit and the mind (at
the time) knew which one. Now develop the photographic plate and
look at it. If you see interference bands then the Many World
interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional
quantum interpretation is correct.
This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the
results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer
the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except
one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the
Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into
one universe because information on which slit the various
photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
different from another, so when that was erased they became
identical again and merged, but their influence will still be
felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went through
slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through slot B only,
and that's what causes the interference pattern.
And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both
observed and yet quantum erased. That's contrary to decoherence
theory of "observed" and assumes some magic "quantum
consciousness", hiding the problem behind a lack of definition of
consciousness.
Brent
You just need a quantum computer with enough qubits to run an AI. Run
it together with Shors algorithm and have "each AI" read a definite
random number from 0 to 2^n where n is the number of qubits needed to
represent the semiprime being factored. Then have the AI copy that
number to another register to prove it went through the AI's mind.
You can't copy qubits.
Brent
Each AI will, like the algorithm, will process and experience a unique
value. Complete Shor's algorithm using the register where the AI wrote
its number to, and reverse the circuit of the AI to "quantum erase"
its memory.
The interference of the results from Shor will give you information to
factor the semiprime, and establish the fact that 2^n unique AI minds
each experienced a definite unique value as it existed as part of the
computation.
There is no decoherence because quantum computers have sufficient
control over the environment, yet this shows there can be no
Heisenberg cut between measurement and consciousness perception by an
observer, as here there were many conscious experiences without
collapsing the superposition (which would have spoiled the computation).
Now consider we (like the qubits of a quantum computer) are part of an
isolated system, so we are not unlike the conscious observers running
on a quantum computer. We obtain many copies whenever we read qubits
in superposed states.
Jason
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
8b4m
--
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/CAJPayv2UfTu-%2BCBVUH_Zjt%3DpwDxRWMr0hBhQbtYvgum32iz5XA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2UfTu-%2BCBVUH_Zjt%3DpwDxRWMr0hBhQbtYvgum32iz5XA%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/84425f9b-b2ba-a667-e847-b562631639b8%40verizon.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84425f9b-b2ba-a667-e847-b562631639b8%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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg8Vb3EnPoGQ1k6-CZK_VPyhyDRzvvLr_08XeaCvYa9jA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg8Vb3EnPoGQ1k6-CZK_VPyhyDRzvvLr_08XeaCvYa9jA%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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e78d0755-d874-646c-a3c2-c0074d3d0f60%40verizon.net.
