On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 11:06 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:22 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> No one now believes that consciousness has anything to do with >>> collapse. For example, in fGRW, the collapse is caused by independent >>> stochastic 'flashes' that have no relevance to consciousness. >>> >> >> Then it says large quantum computers aren't possible. How large dies fGRW >> say quantum computers can get before they fail? If it gives such a >> prediction then we can test it. If it doesn't give a prediction it's an >> empty theory as it's irrefutable and untestable. >> > > First design me your large QC. As far as fGRW is concerned, if the QC is > defined in terms purely of its qubits, then the limit would probably be > something on the order of Avogadro's Number of qubits. > We should be able to implement a human brain emulation with between 10^15 and 10^18 qubits. A mouse brain would be ~10,000 times less than that. >> In Bohm's theory, there never is any collapse because there is never any >>> mystic 'superposition'. >>> >> >> Bohm admitted privately that his theory was a many-worlds theory. I don't >> have the reference on hand but can try to find it if you're interested. >> > > Deutsch's calumny of Bohm's theory by saying that it was just many worlds > in denial shows that Deutsch did not really understand Bohm's theory. The > point of that theory is that particles have definite positions. And there > is only one position for each particle -- guided by the pilot wave. Many > worlds would require separate particles for each component of the guiding > wave. This Bohm denies. > What guides the pilot wave, but unseen swaths of "not really there" particles, all superposing and interfering with each other and behaving exactly like "really real particles" in that what blocks or what permits the transmission of them along their many possible paths is exactly the same as what blocks or transmits the really real particles. There are collections of not really there particles as elaborate as whole bodies and brains, and earths, but we need never worry about them, because they're not real so they can't be conscious, even though you will find books about consciousness written by interacting collections of these not real particles in their not really real universes which happen to function to interfere with the really real particles in our universe. I hope we ourselves are not made of those fake particles who only make themselves known by guiding the pilot wave in the real universe. > >> In Penroses gravitational induced collapse, the collapse is due to >>> changes in the spacetime metric -- again, independent of consciousness. >>> >> >> The same critique I made of fGRW applies here. What's does gravitational >> induced collapse suggest for an upper limit of qubits? >> > > Avogadro's Number? > What's special about this number? Does the theory really bear Avagadro's Number out as a point of significance? I would think something more fundamental and natural, like a Planck unit would be involved rather than the number of carbon atoms it takes to equal the mass of 12 cubic centimeters of water. > So Deutsch's thought experiment is about nothing at all, and proves >>> nothing at all. >>> >> >> Deutsch's aim was to show that collapse vs. no collapse was in principle >> testable. All you write above confirms this as these spontaneous collapse >> theories make different predictions which are testable, so they're not just >> different interpretations, but different theories. >> > > I agree that they are different theories. And that all are, in principle, > testable. But then, as I said to Saibal, it is unlikely that unitary > evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is the final theory either. > Deutsch's thought experiment proves nothing about MWI, one way or the other. > As a thought experiment it shows only that that collapse vs. no collapse can be tested in principle. As a real experiment, it would refute or confirm collapse as a genuine and wholly irreversible phenomenon. Jason > Bruce > > -- > 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/CAFxXSLRXCGVW3Z2_s-TcWoM9OPJsVXTBHu4WV7LzY9vFOBMX%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRXCGVW3Z2_s-TcWoM9OPJsVXTBHu4WV7LzY9vFOBMX%2Bg%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/CA%2BBCJUjvaMHoWG19ibt-ndq%2BENhOtgj2o6yxmGKbuB0F%2BtsAqA%40mail.gmail.com.
