Well, as a proud believer in Quantum Woo (sounds like a Chnese physicists'
name! ha ha), I would agree with you and Herr, Dr. Schodinger that
'Consciousness' must be a feature, perhaps The Feature in the scheme of things?
Like with this Chinese team last year doing 'neural' Entanglement research. I
haven't checked to see if this work was scientifically, disputed?
Entangled biphoton generation in the myelin sheath | Phys. Rev. E
On Friday, February 28, 2025 at 11:54:12 AM EST, 'Cosmin Visan' via
Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because they keep ignoring consciousness.
On Friday, 28 February 2025 at 15:02:40 UTC+2 John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 6:33 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror
> That's to show that a macroscopic object can be in a superposition. I don't
>see how that would test MWI?
Greg Egan asked:
"I wonder just what the implications would be if the Bouwmeester et al.
experiment [Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror] shows no interference.
It certainly gives an opportunity to falsify Penrose’s theory of
gravitationally induced collapse, and a no-interference result would make that
theory much more credible."
Scott Aaronson responded:
"Yes, absolutely, there might be “gravity-induced environmental decoherence,”
of a kind that left quantum-mechanical linearity formally intact. But even
then, if the decoherence were irreversible for some fundamental reason (e.g.,
if the differences in the gravitational metric in the two branches propagated
outward at the speed of light, and the cosmology was such that the branches
could never recohere), then I’d tend to say that unitarity “remained on its
throne only as a ceremonial monarch”! In other words, as soon as we postulate
any decoherence (whatever its source) that occurs below the level of everyday
experience, and that’s truly irreversible for fundamental physical reasons … at
that point, I would say that we can now fully explain our experience without
any reference to parallel copies of ourselves in other branches, and are
therefore not forced into MWIism."
So in Scott Aaronson's opinion, the Bouwmeester experiment has the potential,
at the very least, to make the MWI far less credible. That is probably why,
despite Aaronson not being a big fan of MWI he is not a big critic either, he
remains neutral on the issue. And I have never heard Aaronson say MWI is not a
legitimate scientific idea because it is not falsifiable.
So if you want we can argue about whether Aaronson is right or wrong about
that, but you can't dispute that I was correct when I said that was Aaronson's
opinion.
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis8b0
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/becc07d9-4235-451a-a65b-d4792d6a3db1n%40googlegroups.com.
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2047758315.3424953.1740929172699%40mail.yahoo.com.
