On 12-04-2022 09:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.
Scientific measurements are carried out in a rigorous way so that
scientists can ahve confidence in the results. That's a separate issue
from what the laws of physics say about the process of observation.
There is nothing in the laws of physics that ties the act of observation
to any requirement hat there be permanent record.
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 superposition.
It depends on whether the observed system was in a superposition.
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.
An obvious choice is the basis in which the observer considered as an
algorithm, is diagonal.
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.
The claim is that IF MWI is true THEN we can conclude X, Y, Z etc. we
then don't need to argue about scientific proof, it's then enough that
according to the MWI, all branches exist and whatever follows from that.
If we do not assume MWI and want to do a test, then we can't make any
such assumptions and scientific proof wih the necessary records will
then play a more important role.
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.
It's perfectly legitimate to argue from theory, like IF MWI is true,
THEN X, Y, Z etc., even if X, Y, Z are not good enough to prove the MWI
due to a lack of scientific rigor associated with them like an absence
of permanent records.
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.
On the basis of experiments we have established that the laws of physics
are reversible and that therefore it's possible for memories to b
reversed. The point of this argument is to argue that observation is not
the same as the formation of permanent records. The two things look like
strongly associated with each other, but that's a consequence of living
in the macroscopic world were decoherence occurs extremely fast.
If I observe something then my brain will be in a particular
computational state. It's that state that matters. Whenever it's
reproduced, by a brain, by a computer or whatever other device, then
that experience of me having that experience will be reproduced.
Saibal
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRnS%2B%3DWjxmS36gzz8sGp04wCmFg1pXkcBWLz10o8tWigQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRnS%2B%3DWjxmS36gzz8sGp04wCmFg1pXkcBWLz10o8tWigQ%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a8d91b795522e0cdb815f80323d726d9%40zonnet.nl.
