On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the >> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed >> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality >> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or >> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.* >> > > Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining > many worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go > through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious > conclusion that many worlds exist. > > > *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. * >> > > I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms > be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve > and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in > fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or > Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity. > > > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen >> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds >> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can >> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then >> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I >> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is >> correct,* >> > > I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The > Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but > not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many > Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the > reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey > different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's > right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms. > > An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a > time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic > plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the > experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which > slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits, > but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a > document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which > slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does > NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went > through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. > There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots. > > Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of > which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the > universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and > only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the > photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the > Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands > then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum > interpretation is correct. > > This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a > measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function > collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace > so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds > will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the > various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe > different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again > and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous > evidence that the photon went through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it > went through slot B only, and that's what causes the interference pattern. > > > And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both observed > and yet quantum erased. That's contrary to decoherence theory of > "observed" and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the > problem behind a lack of definition of consciousness. > > Brent > > You just need a quantum computer with enough qubits to run an AI. Run it together with Shors algorithm and have "each AI" read a definite random number from 0 to 2^n where n is the number of qubits needed to represent the semiprime being factored. Then have the AI copy that number to another register to prove it went through the AI's mind. Each AI will, like the algorithm, will process and experience a unique value. Complete Shor's algorithm using the register where the AI wrote its number to, and reverse the circuit of the AI to "quantum erase" its memory. The interference of the results from Shor will give you information to factor the semiprime, and establish the fact that 2^n unique AI minds each experienced a definite unique value as it existed as part of the computation. There is no decoherence because quantum computers have sufficient control over the environment, yet this shows there can be no Heisenberg cut between measurement and consciousness perception by an observer, as here there were many conscious experiences without collapsing the superposition (which would have spoiled the computation). Now consider we (like the qubits of a quantum computer) are part of an isolated system, so we are not unlike the conscious observers running on a quantum computer. We obtain many copies whenever we read qubits in superposed states. Jason > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > 8b4m > > > > > > > > > -- > 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/CAJPayv2UfTu-%2BCBVUH_Zjt%3DpwDxRWMr0hBhQbtYvgum32iz5XA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2UfTu-%2BCBVUH_Zjt%3DpwDxRWMr0hBhQbtYvgum32iz5XA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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/84425f9b-b2ba-a667-e847-b562631639b8%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84425f9b-b2ba-a667-e847-b562631639b8%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CA%2BBCJUg8Vb3EnPoGQ1k6-CZK_VPyhyDRzvvLr_08XeaCvYa9jA%40mail.gmail.com.
