On 4/26/2018 8:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* <meeke...@verizon.net>
On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* <meeke...@verizon.net>
On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was
made, something irreversible has been extracted from the
experiment. If the QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with
something to make this irreversible record, so its quantum state
is irreversibly changed. But you are probably right: if there is
no decoherence, then there is no consciousness, since
consciousness involves irreversible memory.
There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection
I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg
photons before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded"
which way and then forgot the result. I think the act of recording
the result, by a consciousness or anything else, is inherently
irreversible. If no record is made, then erasure is perfectly
possible. Just knowing that there were welcher weg photons that have
been erased is not quite the same thing.
But that's my question: Why isn't it the same? And even if it's not
how would be know? The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that
it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that
it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer,
before it was erased. But why would we believe it? We already have
these experiments in which we know the weg was available and could
have been recorded, but was erased. So what is the "consciousness"
that adds a secret-sauce to the experiment?
Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by calling
it "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction with the
welcher weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence -- basically
information was extracted that was not restored. Also, of course, if
the QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on the fact that it
did anything. How can we believe that it actually knew which slit at
some point?
This is actually an example of the kind of experiment I've suggested
Bruno should analyze using his "comp" theory. It seems sufficiently
fundamental and dependent on a theory of consciousness and quantum
mechanics that Bruno's theory should have something to say about it.
One successful prediction and his Nobel prize will be assured.
Brent
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.