Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[Bruce Kellett]

On 11/06/2017 7:14 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:
On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal > wrote:




OK. In this case, Alice choose to measure her spin. This will
only self-localized here in one (actually still aleph_0)
histories, where she will know her states, and the states of any
Bob she could soon or later interact with, but not of the
inaccessible Bobs, who might found non correlated result. yet,n
him too will be able to met only the Alice(s) having the
correlated spin.


​Why?


That is due to the singlet state.  [Alice Bob ( up down - down up) ]= 
[Alice Bob up down - Alice Bob down up] keeps its rotational symmetry, 
even after the interaction took place.


That is false. The measurement of a spin or polarization state 
introduces an externally defined direction that destroys the rotational 
symmetry of the original state. And in general, Alice and Bob will 
introduce different external directions.


The correlation are built in by the preparation of that state, and is 
valide whatever the smpin direction are, so you can add prime to up 
and down, for the other direction, and the correlation does not 
depends on the base, and evolve locally.


The rotational symmetry does not depend on the basis, but it does not 
evolve locally since the particles move apart and no longer interact.


When space separated, they are independent, but by virtue of the 
singlet state, if they do measurement, they will put themselves in 
"independent" and possible different superposition, which will 
'contagiate' their respective environment up to *different* partners 
who will get the right correlation by the math of the singlet state 
which will not allow any Alice and Bob to not confirm the singlet , 
highly correlated state.


That is just an appeal to magic.

The singlet state describe an infinity of Alice and Bob, having all 
their spin being correlated,


No, it does not. There is only one Alice and Bob -- it is only the 
direction in which they choose to measure the spin/polarization that is 
undefined until they actually do it. Then they can only each split into 
two copies in the case under discussion.


and they localoze themselves in which one when doing measurement. This 
can be used to show that they will conclude that Bell's inequality is 
violated, despite no influence at a distance exist. There is only 
spreading superposition, and all Alice and Bob can only meet their 
corresponding partners.


Sure, they can only meet their corresponding partners, but how do they 
know, in your account, which partners correspond?


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 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.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[Bruce Kellett]

On 11/06/2017 1:31 am, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Kellett
 wrote:

On 10/06/2017 2:36 am, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Kellett


The idea that the explanation is epistemological rather that ontological
has
been my preferred position for a long time. If the wave-function is
merely
an epistemological device for calculating probabilities and not a really
existing object, all worries about collapse and action-at-a-distance
vanish.
Of course, multi worlds also vanish, but in my opinion that is no bad
thing.

So what's your position on Deutsch's argument about quantum computers?
Where does the extra computing power come from?


It has long been understood that Deutsch is out to lunch on this.

He appears
to assume that a quantum computer is just using the same algorithms that a
classical computer would use, only executing them in a massively parallel
manner.

I find it very hard to believe that David Deutsch does not have a good
understanding of quantum computers.


This is manifestly false. Quantum computers operate in a completely
different way -- that is why there are so few actual algorithms for quantum
computers to execute that gain massive speed improvements.

I think you built a straw man and now you're attacking it. When I
heard Deutsch make the argument, he was referring explicitly to Shor's
algorithm. This is sufficient to demonstrate an increase in
computational power that would be impossible in the classical world.


No one is denying that Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer would 
factorize numbers exponentially faster that a classical Turing machine 
could do it. But that does not mean that a quantum computer is just  lot 
of classical Turing machines acting in parallel.



As for more general speed improvements, there is for example Grover's
algorithm, that offers a quadratic improvement in searching unsorted
lists. This has wide applicability in software engineering.

Of course, building more complex quantum computers is still beyond our
technical abilities. I don't think that's news for anyone...


As Brent says in his recent post, Scott Aaronson points out:
"The way a quantum algorithms work is that they arrange for wrong answers to
destructively interfere while the desired answer interferes constructively.
Interference requires that they take place in the same world."

Yes, but this is not classical interference, it's interference between
superpositions of states. So how can this computation happen in the
physical world?


No one is suggesting that this is classical interference. Interference 
between superpositions of states does happen in the physical world! Are 
you suggesting that two-slit interference does not happen in the 
physical world? Interference between qbits happens in the physical world 
just as much as two-slit interference. If you define a "world" as 
something closed to outside interactions, then interference can only 
take place in the one world.



  For me, that gives more credence to the claim that the
wave function describes a real object.


I don't see how that could follow. The wave function exists in complex 
configuration space -- that is not the "real world".



Classical computers do not have quantum interference. Quantum computing does
not prove the existence of parallel worlds -- there is no need for other
worlds in which to find the computational power, you just need a modicum of
insight into how quantum computing algorithms work.

You might claim that Deutsch is a known expert on quantum computing, but
more commonly, Deutsch is known for having way out, non-standard ideas on
quantum mechanics.

Oh no! Everyone should be kept in line!


Physics is full of people who take non-standard positions. On the whole, 
that is a good thing, because it provides an opportunity for real 
advances in understanding. But that does not mean that all non-standard 
positions are 'true' or valuable.


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 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.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[David Nyman]

On 11 Jun 2017 16:44, "Bruno Marchal"  wrote:


On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote:

On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
 On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning
>>> and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw.
>>> Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome
>>> notation, but I will attempt to simplify as far as is possible. I will 
>>> use
>>> '+' and '-' as spin states, rather than his 'left', 'right'.
>>>
>>> He write the initial wave function as for the case when you and I
>>> agree in advance to have aligned polarizers:
>>>
>>> |psi_1> = }me, electrons,you> = |me>(|+-> - |-+>)|you>
>>>   = |me, +,-,you> - |me,-,+,you>
>>>
>>> He says that at this point no measurements have been made, and
>>> neither observer is split. But his fundamental mistake is already 
>>> present.
>>>
>>> A little test for you: what is wrong with the above set of equations
>>> from a no-collapse pov?
>>>
>>> skipping some tedium, he then gets
>>>
>>> |psi_3> = |me[+],+,-,you[-]> - |me[-],-,+,you[+]>
>>>
>>> where the notation me[+] etc means I have measured '+', you[-] means
>>> you have measured '-'.
>>>
>>> He then claims that the QM results of perfect anticorrelation in the
>>> case of parallel polarizers has been recovered without any non-local
>>> interaction!
>>>
>>> Spoiler -- in order to write the final line for |psi_1> he has
>>> already assumed collapse, when I measure '+', you are presented *only* 
>>> with
>>> '-', so of course you get the right result -- he has built that
>>> non-locality in from the start.
>>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> From the start shows that it is local.
>>
>
> Your failure to see the problem here is symptomatic of your complete
> failure to understand EPR in the MWI.
>

 I could say the same, but emphatic statements are not helping. My
 feeling is that you interpret the singlet state above like if it prepares
 Alice and Bob particles in the respective + and - states, but that is not
 the case. The singlet state describe a multiverse where Alice and Bob have
 all possible states, yet correlated.

>>>
>>> The singlet state is rotationally invariant, yes, and can be expanded in
>>> any basis of the 2-d complex Hilbert space. That has never been in doubt.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then in absence of collapse, all interactions, and results are obtained
 locally, and does not need to be correlated until they spread at low speed
 up their partners.

>>>
>>> That does not follow. Although there are an infinity of possible bases
>>> for the singlet state, these are potential only,
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand this. Potential? That is no more the MW.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and do not exist in any operative sense until the state interacts with
>>> something that sets a direction.
>>>
>>
>> That looks more like Bohr than Everett.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You appear to claim that A and B exist in separate worlds corresponding
>>> to each of this infinity of bases.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. It is the rotaional invariance of the singlet states "taken
>> seriously" when we drop the idea of collapse, or of special dualism between
>> observer and the observed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that is a misunderstanding. They are in superpositions in every base,
>>> sure, but that does not mean that there are 'worlds' corresponding to each
>>> possible base until some external interaction occurs.
>>>
>>
>> This is even more fuzzy than the collapse. It looks like consciousness
>> not only reduce the wave, but create the physical reality. That is correct
>> in Mechanism, but that is another story.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you yourself have said, a world is something that is closed to
>>> interaction. But superpositions are not closed to interaction, they can
>>> interfere -- as in the two slit experiment, and essentially every other
>>> application of QM.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So there are no separate worlds corresponding to every possible
>>> orientation of the polarizers. Worlds can arise only after interaction and
>>> decoherence has progressed so that the overlap between the branches of the
>>> superposition is zero (FAPP if you like). It is only then that the branches
>>> can no longer interfere (interact) and are closed to interaction, and thus
>>> constitute different worlds.
>>>
>>
>> We will have to disagree with this. I use the Y=II rules, like Deutsch.
>> In this case the readin

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote:


On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:


On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:

I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this  
morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw.
Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome  
notation, but I will attempt to simplify as far as is possible. I  
will use '+' and '-' as spin states, rather than his 'left', 'right'.


He write the initial wave function as for the case when you and I  
agree in advance to have aligned polarizers:


|psi_1> = }me, electrons,you> = |me>(|+-> - |-+>)|you>
  = |me, +,-,you> - |me,-,+,you>

He says that at this point no measurements have been made, and  
neither observer is split. But his fundamental mistake is already  
present.


A little test for you: what is wrong with the above set of  
equations from a no-collapse pov?


skipping some tedium, he then gets

|psi_3> = |me[+],+,-,you[-]> - |me[-],-,+,you[+]>

where the notation me[+] etc means I have measured '+', you[-]  
means you have measured '-'.


He then claims that the QM results of perfect anticorrelation in  
the case of parallel polarizers has been recovered without any non- 
local interaction!


Spoiler -- in order to write the final line for |psi_1> he has  
already assumed collapse, when I measure '+', you are presented  
*only* with '-', so of course you get the right result -- he has  
built that non-locality in from the start.


?

From the start shows that it is local.

Your failure to see the problem here is symptomatic of your  
complete failure to understand EPR in the MWI.


I could say the same, but emphatic statements are not helping. My  
feeling is that you interpret the singlet state above like if it  
prepares Alice and Bob particles in the respective + and - states,  
but that is not the case. The singlet state describe a multiverse  
where Alice and Bob have all possible states, yet correlated.


The singlet state is rotationally invariant, yes, and can be  
expanded in any basis of the 2-d complex Hilbert space. That has  
never been in doubt.


OK.



Then in absence of collapse, all interactions, and results are  
obtained locally, and does not need to be correlated until they  
spread at low speed up their partners.


That does not follow. Although there are an infinity of possible  
bases for the singlet state, these are potential only,


I don't understand this. Potential? That is no more the MW.





and do not exist in any operative sense until the state interacts  
with something that sets a direction.


That looks more like Bohr than Everett.




You appear to claim that A and B exist in separate worlds  
corresponding to each of this infinity of bases.


Yes. It is the rotaional invariance of the singlet states "taken  
seriously" when we drop the idea of collapse, or of special dualism  
between observer and the observed.





But that is a misunderstanding. They are in superpositions in every  
base, sure, but that does not mean that there are 'worlds'  
corresponding to each possible base until some external interaction  
occurs.


This is even more fuzzy than the collapse. It looks like  
consciousness not only reduce the wave, but create the physical  
reality. That is correct in Mechanism, but that is another story.




As you yourself have said, a world is something that is closed to  
interaction. But superpositions are not closed to interaction, they  
can interfere -- as in the two slit experiment, and essentially  
every other application of QM.


Right.



So there are no separate worlds corresponding to every possible  
orientation of the polarizers. Worlds can arise only after  
interaction and decoherence has progressed so that the overlap  
between the branches of the superposition is zero (FAPP if you  
like). It is only then that the branches can no longer interfere  
(interact) and are closed to interaction, and thus constitute  
different worlds.


We will have to disagree with this. I use the Y=II rules, like  
Deutsch. In this case the reading of the singlet state gives  
2^aleph_zero constantly spreading histories figuring Bob and Alice.  
With mechanism, those worlds/histories are more like dreams. They  
will be epistemological personal (and plural in the spreading  
interaction based spheres).





The standard procedure in quantum mechanics when one is faced with  
a superposition that interacts with something external, is to  
expand the superposition in a base that corresponds to the external  
context.


OK. In this case, Alice choose to measure her spin. This will only  
self-localized here in one (actually still aleph

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[David Nyman]

On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
 On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning
>>> and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw.
>>> Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome
>>> notation, but I will attempt to simplify as far as is possible. I will 
>>> use
>>> '+' and '-' as spin states, rather than his 'left', 'right'.
>>>
>>> He write the initial wave function as for the case when you and I
>>> agree in advance to have aligned polarizers:
>>>
>>> |psi_1> = }me, electrons,you> = |me>(|+-> - |-+>)|you>
>>>   = |me, +,-,you> - |me,-,+,you>
>>>
>>> He says that at this point no measurements have been made, and
>>> neither observer is split. But his fundamental mistake is already 
>>> present.
>>>
>>> A little test for you: what is wrong with the above set of equations
>>> from a no-collapse pov?
>>>
>>> skipping some tedium, he then gets
>>>
>>> |psi_3> = |me[+],+,-,you[-]> - |me[-],-,+,you[+]>
>>>
>>> where the notation me[+] etc means I have measured '+', you[-] means
>>> you have measured '-'.
>>>
>>> He then claims that the QM results of perfect anticorrelation in the
>>> case of parallel polarizers has been recovered without any non-local
>>> interaction!
>>>
>>> Spoiler -- in order to write the final line for |psi_1> he has
>>> already assumed collapse, when I measure '+', you are presented *only* 
>>> with
>>> '-', so of course you get the right result -- he has built that
>>> non-locality in from the start.
>>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> From the start shows that it is local.
>>
>
> Your failure to see the problem here is symptomatic of your complete
> failure to understand EPR in the MWI.
>

 I could say the same, but emphatic statements are not helping. My
 feeling is that you interpret the singlet state above like if it prepares
 Alice and Bob particles in the respective + and - states, but that is not
 the case. The singlet state describe a multiverse where Alice and Bob have
 all possible states, yet correlated.

>>>
>>> The singlet state is rotationally invariant, yes, and can be expanded in
>>> any basis of the 2-d complex Hilbert space. That has never been in doubt.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then in absence of collapse, all interactions, and results are obtained
 locally, and does not need to be correlated until they spread at low speed
 up their partners.

>>>
>>> That does not follow. Although there are an infinity of possible bases
>>> for the singlet state, these are potential only,
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand this. Potential? That is no more the MW.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and do not exist in any operative sense until the state interacts with
>>> something that sets a direction.
>>>
>>
>> That looks more like Bohr than Everett.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You appear to claim that A and B exist in separate worlds corresponding
>>> to each of this infinity of bases.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. It is the rotaional invariance of the singlet states "taken
>> seriously" when we drop the idea of collapse, or of special dualism between
>> observer and the observed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that is a misunderstanding. They are in superpositions in every base,
>>> sure, but that does not mean that there are 'worlds' corresponding to each
>>> possible base until some external interaction occurs.
>>>
>>
>> This is even more fuzzy than the collapse. It looks like consciousness
>> not only reduce the wave, but create the physical reality. That is correct
>> in Mechanism, but that is another story.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you yourself have said, a world is something that is closed to
>>> interaction. But superpositions are not closed to interaction, they can
>>> interfere -- as in the two slit experiment, and essentially every other
>>> application of QM.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So there are no separate worlds corresponding to every possible
>>> orientation of the polarizers. Worlds can arise only after interaction and
>>> decoherence has progressed so that the overlap between the branches of the
>>> superposition is zero (FAPP if you like). It is only then that the branches
>>> can no longer interfere (interact) and are closed to interaction, and thus
>>> constitute different worlds.
>>>
>>
>> We will have to disagree with this. I use the Y=II rules, like Deutsch.
>> In this case the reading of the singlet state gives 2^aleph_zero constantly
>> spreading histories figuring Bob and A

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:


On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:

I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this  
morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw.
Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome  
notation, but I will attempt to simplify as far as is possible. I  
will use '+' and '-' as spin states, rather than his 'left', 'right'.


He write the initial wave function as for the case when you and I  
agree in advance to have aligned polarizers:


|psi_1> = }me, electrons,you> = |me>(|+-> - |-+>)|you>
  = |me, +,-,you> - |me,-,+,you>

He says that at this point no measurements have been made, and  
neither observer is split. But his fundamental mistake is already  
present.


A little test for you: what is wrong with the above set of equations  
from a no-collapse pov?


skipping some tedium, he then gets

|psi_3> = |me[+],+,-,you[-]> - |me[-],-,+,you[+]>

where the notation me[+] etc means I have measured '+', you[-] means  
you have measured '-'.


He then claims that the QM results of perfect anticorrelation in the  
case of parallel polarizers has been recovered without any non-local  
interaction!


Spoiler -- in order to write the final line for |psi_1> he has  
already assumed collapse, when I measure '+', you are presented  
*only* with '-', so of course you get the right result -- he has  
built that non-locality in from the start.


?

From the start shows that it is local.

Your failure to see the problem here is symptomatic of your complete  
failure to understand EPR in the MWI.


I could say the same, but emphatic statements are not helping. My  
feeling is that you interpret the singlet state above like if it  
prepares Alice and Bob particles in the respective + and - states,  
but that is not the case. The singlet state describe a multiverse  
where Alice and Bob have all possible states, yet correlated.


The singlet state is rotationally invariant, yes, and can be  
expanded in any basis of the 2-d complex Hilbert space. That has  
never been in doubt.


OK.



Then in absence of collapse, all interactions, and results are  
obtained locally, and does not need to be correlated until they  
spread at low speed up their partners.


That does not follow. Although there are an infinity of possible  
bases for the singlet state, these are potential only,


I don't understand this. Potential? That is no more the MW.





and do not exist in any operative sense until the state interacts  
with something that sets a direction.


That looks more like Bohr than Everett.




You appear to claim that A and B exist in separate worlds  
corresponding to each of this infinity of bases.


Yes. It is the rotaional invariance of the singlet states "taken  
seriously" when we drop the idea of collapse, or of special dualism  
between observer and the observed.





But that is a misunderstanding. They are in superpositions in every  
base, sure, but that does not mean that there are 'worlds'  
corresponding to each possible base until some external interaction  
occurs.


This is even more fuzzy than the collapse. It looks like  
consciousness not only reduce the wave, but create the physical  
reality. That is correct in Mechanism, but that is another story.




As you yourself have said, a world is something that is closed to  
interaction. But superpositions are not closed to interaction, they  
can interfere -- as in the two slit experiment, and essentially  
every other application of QM.


Right.



So there are no separate worlds corresponding to every possible  
orientation of the polarizers. Worlds can arise only after  
interaction and decoherence has progressed so that the overlap  
between the branches of the superposition is zero (FAPP if you  
like). It is only then that the branches can no longer interfere  
(interact) and are closed to interaction, and thus constitute  
different worlds.


We will have to disagree with this. I use the Y=II rules, like  
Deutsch. In this case the reading of the singlet state gives  
2^aleph_zero constantly spreading histories figuring Bob and Alice.  
With mechanism, those worlds/histories are more like dreams. They  
will be epistemological personal (and plural in the spreading  
interaction based spheres).





The standard procedure in quantum mechanics when one is faced with a  
superposition that interacts with something external, is to expand  
the superposition in a base that corresponds to the external context.


OK. In this case, Alice choose to measure her spin. This will only  
self-localized here in one (actually still aleph_0) histories, where  
she will know her states, and the states of any Bob she could soon  
or lat

Re: substitution level

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2017, at 18:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:



On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis.


Yes.

Of course, it can

"do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the
subject,

that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a
genuine

random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum computer, you  
need to


emulate the duplication of the observer, like in the WM  
duplication.



Well ok, but this part is easy to solve on a classical computer:
https://www.random.org/

:)


Using atmospheric noise as an oracle.

OK, it is better than than using PI or sqrt(2), but is really a  
computer
with an oracle (which by the way has the same theology than a  
computer

without oracle, but this is just a note in passing).



On the other hand (and I think Russell said it before here), I am
convinced that randomness plays a role in creativity, and there is
some evidence from the evolutionary computation community that true
randomness is better than pseudo-random generators for this purpose.



It is a complex issue. From the strict theoretical view, it can be  
proved
that the class of problem solvable by a machine using a "true"  
random oracle

is bigger than with any pseudo-random oracle. But the proof I saw is
second-recursion ironical, which means that we need to go in Heaven  
to

really solve those problem.


If you can find the reference, I would like to take a look.



KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and  
Control, 57, pp. 40-47.









That can play a role in the derivation of physics, though, as the UD*
introduce a random oracle in physics. It might be the usual quantum
indeterminacy.


This random oracle would come from FPI, correct?



Yes. Of course UD* is not "pure random oracle", as the FPI is  
structured by the first person pov on the leaves  of UD*. But it  
contains it. That makes it very different from the white noise of the  
"pure" iteration of the self-duplication.


Best,

Bruno










Now, prove me that random.org really use the oracle. May be it  
uses Pi or

1/Pi. Not sure we could see the difference, if they change the seed
regularly.



There is an independent master thesis on this, but I'm not willing  
to
read more than 100 pages on the subject and take their word for  
it :)


It cannot be proved, of course, but there are statistical methods to
measure the "quality" of random numbers. Overall, I believe  
random.org

passes several independent tests as is well-regarded.



Oh, it is cute for sure. I did need some energy to sop generating  
random

number ...


:)







Well, thanks for letting me know that you are not serious :)



I was not :)

But if you want real randomness and do not trust a third party,  
there

are other options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator




You really seems to want me to become an addict!  :)


Sorry! But I understand, I love random numbers too.






but with comp it would have consequences regarding

our "insertion" in reality, so to say. Correct?



I am not sure of what you mean exactly. It would not change the  
physics,

but

allow us to exploit more directly the FPI.


Yes, I meant simply that our mind would supervene on more branches.


And we would become able to compute Fourier transform on the  
result of

some
computations made in all branches. According to Deustch we would  
be able

to
detect the "parallel universes".  We would be able to find  
quickly a

needle
in a stack, and I would have less problem to find my glasses on my
dekstop
:)



:)


I am completely agnostic on this,

but I am not convince by the current argument that there are  
evidences

that

a brain could be a quantum computer. They might be right, but I  
wait for


more evidences.


Me too.

Elementary arithmetic is full of quantum computing machineries. I  
even


suspect that the prime number distribution encodes a universal  
quantum


chaotic dovetailing,



Can you explain what you mean by chaotic dovetailing?



Have you heard about quantum chaos?


No, interesting. I'm starting to read about it. I always loved
standard chaos theory. It was one of the first things that  
profoundly

changed my map of reality.


A not to bad intro is

"http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/27151/excerpt/9780521027151_excerpt.pdf 
"



Thanks!




OK.









Here I meant classical usual dovetailing

on the classical emulation of quantum chaos. From the FPI, it can
converge

on "genuine" quantum chaos. There are some evidences, related to  
the

Riemann

hypothesis that the "spectrum" or he critical zero of zeta might
correspond

to some quantum chaoitic hamiltonian's eigenvalue. I read that a  
long

time

ago. If quantum chaos is Turing universal, it