On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:24 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 07-04-2022 00:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > But then you have the problem of whether "observers" simulated by a
> > quantum computer can actually make measurements. The essence of a
> > measurement is the formation of permanent records in the environment.
> It's perfectly possible for an observer to make an observation without
> there being any permanent record. The physical processes that makes
> someone be able to see and feel something has noting to do with the
> formation of permanent records.

One word. Decoherence.

> > Quantum computers cannot do this unless they stop and print out a
> > result. Your quantum computer simulation requires a redefinition of
> > the concept of measurement so that it becomes essentially meaningless.
> It forces one to come up with a more reasonable definition of
> measurement.

There is a perfectly reasonable definition of measurement that involves
decoherence and the formation of multiple records in the environment --
quantum Darwinism of Zurek.

> If I observe something, then that's because there is a
> brain that's running the algorithm that corresponds to that observation.
> In the context of the MWI one then needs to assume that there exists
> algorithms for observations made by Alice and Bob which then defines the
> required preferred basis.

The preferred basis is not determined by algorithms -- it is determined by
robustness under decoherence. You can redefine everything so that your
theory is no longer quantum mechanics -- but that is a fairly pointless


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 

Reply via email to