On 7/6/2021 6:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 7/5/2021 5:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 7/4/2021 5:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List <everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 performthat 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 propertiesand
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.
You can't copy qubits.
I mean copy in the sense of the algorithm's code, which
implementation-wise would be propagating the entanglement on to
other particles.
But you're making a record to have proof that the AI saw them.
Brent
The only permanent record is the result of Shor's algorithm.
Everything else is reversibly erased as is done in the normal algorithm.
But we know from the design of this modified algorithm that the AI
perceived and processed each possible value, even if the only
remaining record/evidence of that fact is the result of the
computation produced by interfering all those different components
together.
Jason
Then I guess I don't understand this part:
/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./
What does it mean to "read a definite random number" and what does that
have to do with recording which slit a photon went thru?
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ba06371-ac04-c213-433c-eb5b333f0ce7%40verizon.net.
