On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On 7/6/2021 6:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 7/5/2021 5:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>>> [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 perform that 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 properties and >>>> 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. >>> >> >> I mean copy in the sense of the algorithm's code, which >> implementation-wise would be propagating the entanglement on to other >> particles. >> >> But you're making a record to have proof that the AI saw them. >> >> Brent >> > The only permanent record is the result of Shor's algorithm. Everything > else is reversibly erased as is done in the normal algorithm. > > But we know from the design of this modified algorithm that the AI > perceived and processed each possible value, even if the only remaining > record/evidence of that fact is the result of the computation produced by > interfering all those different components together. > > Jason > > Then I guess I don't understand this part: > > *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.* > > What does it mean to "read a definite random number" > F(x) is a quantum algorithm (a combination AI + Shor's algorithm) which takes an input x where x is a set of N qubits, with each qubit initialized to a superposition of 1 and 0. Since the qubits are in a superposition representing 2^N states, the quantum algorithm likewise becomes a superposition of 2^N uniquely processed values. Each one can be viewed as a unique evaluation of F(i) where i is each of the possible N-bit bit strings. Since F() includes a conscious AI evaluating the input value, and since it exists in a superposition, then the evaluation on a quantum computer corresponds to 2^N independent conscious states. and what does that have to do with recording which slit a photon went thru? > It's an alternate example of Deutsch's experiment which shows that consciousness doesn't cause collapse, assuming adding a conscious AI to Shor's algorithm doesn't somehow break the algorithm. If you can still factor numbers with the AI added to the circuit, then consciousness doesn't cause collapse, and we can see QM directly leads to many "split" observers. Jason 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/4ba06371-ac04-c213-433c-eb5b333f0ce7%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ba06371-ac04-c213-433c-eb5b333f0ce7%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/CA%2BBCJUgtEVz_6KAGFcQtEVDSAWR1CDPErT1RJrsa4T0z0%3Ddd2A%40mail.gmail.com.
