On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:55 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes. I rather thought that you were all going down the many minds route --
as David Albert has pointed out, that particular failed philosophy seems to
motivate many MWI enthusiasts. But that is a dead end, as Albert and Loewer
soon realized. Nothing to be seen there.....


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