On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Jason, > > Answers to your 3 questions. > > 1. No. > If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. > 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. > It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. > So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). > 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already > exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information > space, as I've described before in a number of posts. > If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. > > However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you > understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled "Yes, > my book does cover quantum reality", or refer to the book itself, or I can > explain further.... > > Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason > > > > On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because >>> he brings up a very important issue. >>> >>> The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread >>> out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly >>> assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. >>> >>> However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another >>> interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in >>> logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is >>> descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events >>> (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the >>> dimensional variables of interacting particles). >>> >> >> I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It >> reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically "we live in a >> simulation running on a quantum computer": http://www.youtube. >> com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc >> >> >>> The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different >>> interpretation. >>> >> >> I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny >> completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron >> double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than >> one place at the same time? >> >> I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered >> the following questions. According to your interpretation: >> >> 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? >> 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or >> dead? >> 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the >> intermediate computations performed? >> >> Jason >> >> >>> >>> However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum >>> events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables >>> us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum >>> 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the >>> fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. >>> >>> >> >> > -- > 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
