On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:22 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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" >>>> >>> F(x) is a quantum algorithm (a combination AI + Shor's algorithm) which >>> takes an input x where x is a set of N qubits, with each qubit initialized >>> to a superposition of 1 and 0. >>> >>> Since the qubits are in a superposition representing 2^N states, the >>> quantum algorithm likewise becomes a superposition of 2^N uniquely >>> processed values. Each one can be viewed as a unique evaluation of F(i) >>> where i is each of the possible N-bit bit strings. >>> >>> Since F() includes a conscious AI evaluating the input value, and since >>> it exists in a superposition, then the evaluation on a quantum computer >>> corresponds to 2^N independent conscious states. >>> >>> >>> and what does that have to do with recording which slit a photon went >>>> thru? >>>> >>> >>> It's an alternate example of Deutsch's experiment which shows that >>> consciousness doesn't cause collapse, assuming adding a conscious AI to >>> Shor's algorithm doesn't somehow break the algorithm. If you can still >>> factor numbers with the AI added to the circuit, then consciousness doesn't >>> cause collapse, and we can see QM directly leads to many "split" observers. >>> >> >> >> No one now believes that consciousness has anything to do with collapse. >> For example, in fGRW, the collapse is caused by independent stochastic >> 'flashes' that have no relevance to consciousness. >> > > Then it says large quantum computers aren't possible. How large dies fGRW > say quantum computers can get before they fail? If it gives such a > prediction then we can test it. If it doesn't give a prediction it's an > empty theory as it's irrefutable and untestable. > First design me your large QC. As far as fGRW is concerned, if the QC is defined in terms purely of its qubits, then the limit would probably be something on the order of Avogadro's Number of qubits. > > In Bohm's theory, there never is any collapse because there is never any >> mystic 'superposition'. >> > > Bohm admitted privately that his theory was a many-worlds theory. I don't > have the reference on hand but can try to find it if you're interested. > Deutsch's calumny of Bohm's theory by saying that it was just many worlds in denial shows that Deutsch did not really understand Bohm's theory. The point of that theory is that particles have definite positions. And there is only one position for each particle -- guided by the pilot wave. Many worlds would require separate particles for each component of the guiding wave. This Bohm denies. > In Penroses gravitational induced collapse, the collapse is due to changes >> in the spacetime metric -- again, independent of consciousness. >> > > The same critique I made of fGRW applies here. What's does gravitational > induced collapse suggest for an upper limit of qubits? > Avogadro's Number? So Deutsch's thought experiment is about nothing at all, and proves >> nothing at all. >> > > Deutsch's aim was to show that collapse vs. no collapse was in principle > testable. All you write above confirms this as these spontaneous collapse > theories make different predictions which are testable, so they're not just > different interpretations, but different theories. > I agree that they are different theories. And that all are, in principle, testable. But then, as I said to Saibal, it is unlikely that unitary evolution according to the Schrodinger equation is the final theory either. Deutsch's thought experiment proves nothing about MWI, one way or the other. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLRXCGVW3Z2_s-TcWoM9OPJsVXTBHu4WV7LzY9vFOBMX%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
