On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 5:08 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 12-04-2022 08:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:31 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Now, in previous discussions the argument was made that you can't
> >> consider a simulation of observers in a quantum computer because, by
> >> definition, measurements must be irreversible.
> >
> > That was never the argument. The problem that was raised over the
> > simulation of people (and measurements) in a quantum computer was that
> > measurement involves the formation of permanent records through
> > decoherence.
> Measurement with permanent records is a red herring. One may define
> measurement as an observations with a permanent record. But we can
> perfectly observe things without there ever going to be permanent
> records.

You are just playing with words. A scientific measurement involves the
formation of permanent records. What you think you observe might be nothing
but an illusion.

> And many copies of the results so that many different
> > observers can check what has been done.
> If no one can ever check what I have observed right now, that doesn't
> mean that I didn't make that observation. At most you can argue that to
> other observers I will be in a superposition of different observations.

No, superpositions do not come into it. Your dreams do not put you in a

> Decoherence is also necessary
> > to find a measurement basis that is robust against decoherence in the
> > environment.
> Yes, but that's irrelevant to observation.

Any measurement is made in terms of an eigenfunction and an eigenvalue in
some basis. That basis has to be determined somehow.

QCs can never do this. A quantum computer is not adapted
> > to the formation of permanent records, and it goes to great lengths to
> > avoid decoherence.
> Decoherence and permanent records are irrelevant for observation.

Sez you, and you are wrong. They are crucial for scientific measurements.
You can change words, so that you claim to be talking about personal
observations whereas the basic discussion is about scientific measurement,
but that convinces no one.

  Consequently, a person simulated in a computer can
> > report that he has achieved all sorts of results, but he cannot
> > produce any evidence of this.
> Unlike in criminal law. the laws of physics do not care about the lack
> of evidence.
> > Personal memories are not scientific
> > evidence.
> What matters is that personal memories can form, not that it can serve
> as evidence to convince others later.

But the formation of scientific theories is crucially dependent on
verifiable evidence. Otherwise, it is just your random fantasies that you
are talking about.

> And it is doubtful if even personal memories could be
> > created in a quantum computer -- QCs do not produce any permanent
> > records before the final result is printed out, and personal memories
> > are a form of (semi-)permanent record.
> >
> That's irrelevant for the formation of personal memories, if it is later
> reversed, then the memories did exist.

If the memory is reversed (whatever that might mean) then there is no
evidence that the memory ever existed. You are back into fantasy-land.


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