Le mar. 19 avr. 2022 à 11:33, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:04 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Le mar. 19 avr. 2022 à 09:27, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:19 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le mar. 19 avr. 2022 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 4:52 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 19 avr. 2022 à 03:20, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:09 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 1:45 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as in Schroedinger's famous example with the cat, you need a
>>>>>>>> "box" and an observer outside, in order to make sense of the cat being 
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> an entangled superposition. Instead of a superobserver, we can do with 
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> impersonal quantum description (in any chosen frame of reference), if 
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> prefer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only purpose of the box in Schroedinger's thought experiment
>>>>>>>> was to put off the observers perception.  Really the thought 
>>>>>>>> experiment is
>>>>>>>> over when the radioactive decay occurs.  That atom has transitioned to 
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> different nuclear state which is entangled with and recorded in the
>>>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. Schrodinger had the cat in a box to emphasize the idea that the
>>>>>>> cat was in a macro-superposition of alive/dead. This misled Wigner to 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> extent that he thought the state collapsed only when the box was opened.
>>>>>>> All of this was made redundant when it was realized that decoherence
>>>>>>>  rendered the state definite almost instantaneously. Saibal makes the 
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> mistake when he claims that Alice, after her measurement, is still in a
>>>>>>> superposition until Bob sees her result. The idea that the superposition
>>>>>>> still exists since decoherence is only FAPP is something of a red 
>>>>>>> herring
>>>>>>> -- in MWI, Alice has branched according to her result into up and down
>>>>>>> branches that no longer interfere. There is no macro-superposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's because Saibal sees observers as "machine"... so until anything
>>>>>> is recorded in the machine available memory... it's in a superposed 
>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are referring to consciousness in quantum computers where
>>>>> there is no decoherence. The trouble with this idea is that without
>>>>> decoherence, no permanent memories can be formed, so it is difficult to
>>>>> know what "observe" means in that context. In any ordinary machine,
>>>>> decoherence is everywhere, so no superposition ever endures. Observers
>>>>> cannot be in superposed states (observation requires the formation of
>>>>> records, and that in turn requires decoherence, which destroys
>>>>> superpositions.) Saibal refers to observation as "an algorithm". But
>>>>> without specifying what runs the algorithm, his claim is devoid of 
>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No I'm referring to consciousness as a "program" that can run on a
>>>> turing machine... the consciousness is well defined and finite at each
>>>> steps and can be represented as a big integer... and until the information
>>>> from the "outside" reach the memory of that program, it's unique... even if
>>>> the experiments has already been done and splitted the environment, the
>>>> actual consciousness split occurs once the memory of the "consciousness
>>>> program" is modified... until it actually records that fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What use is that?
>>>
>>
>> I'm explaining to you what Saibal is saying... an observer for Saibal is
>> a machine.
>>
>
> I was aware that Saibal thought that. My question remains: "What use is
> that?"
>

Explaining the split/probabilites through self localisation and in the end
explaining that "splitting" is observer dependent and that it's only the
observer who "splits" according to data that are accessible in memory... a
sort of many mind instead of many world... but I'll let Saibal explaining
it... I'm just saying what I understood from that.

Quentin

>
> 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/CAFxXSLTB1DL06p3TVs2nbzt22SaJ_RWVF6RK%3DA%3Dicg9CyPBD1Q%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTB1DL06p3TVs2nbzt22SaJ_RWVF6RK%3DA%3Dicg9CyPBD1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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/CAMW2kAoKeunwNCZHH8OOsGOkHNpgBPvM3WUby2G%2BS9%2B5KjjTkg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to