Re: time arrow, measurement, superposition
> On 6 May 2018, at 22:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:03:10 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>> Here below a point made by Asher Peres.
>>
>> --
>>
>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern
>> between the cat alive and the cat dead.
>>
>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the
>> state
>>
>> ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]
>>
>> would be meaningful.
>>
>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble
>> of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on
>> state ψ.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.
>>
>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.
>>
>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to
>> construct the ψ-measuring machine.
>>
>>
>> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you
>> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG
>
>
> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, and
> the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using the
> exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to build
> the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device,
>
> Why do we need such a measuring device to solve the cat paradox?
There is not cat “paradox”. Just people who dislike the idea that a cat can be
in a alive+dead macroscopic state.
We need the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, not to solve the cat
“paradox”, but to resuscitate the cat.
> What is it supposed to be measuring? What superposition? AG
We start of alive + dead, look at the cat and see it dead, then work in the
dead_alive/dead-alive base, and do a measurement in that base, and we can
rescutitate the cat, exactly like in the quantum description of an
interferometer.
The only problem is in building the the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring
device. That is not feasible, and plausibly never feasible, due to the
impossibility to isolate the cat and the observer of the cat, until we have
large scale quantum computers.
> but I do see how I can emulate it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing
> machine. (Which is Turing emulate and so arithmetic emulates a quantum
> universal dovetailer, BTW. But if it is the winner, that has to be justify
> from number self-reference logic (as I have explained, or see my papers).
>
> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot in
> the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself directly by
> a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to find yourself
> “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!).
>
> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM without
> collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong somewhere.
>
> You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the
> additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem
> oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to
> justify it. AG
>
> I see nothing in the SWE that implies, requires, or guarantees, that every
> outcome that's possible, must occur. AG
If they don’t occur, you will miss the interference patterns, simply.
Bruno
>
>
> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open to
> generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is simpler
> than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism, used by Everett, entails a
> theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are provably
> emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality.
>
> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all computations,
> modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential correctness.
> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person, and
> a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks to
> the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended
> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal
> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent
> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable
> notion of world.
>
> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum of
> the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know enough
> of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine, and
> computations, are arithmetical notion, definable
Re: time arrow, measurement, superposition
> On 6 May 2018, at 22:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>> Here below a point made by Asher Peres.
>>
>> --
>>
>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern
>> between the cat alive and the cat dead.
>>
>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the
>> state
>>
>> ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]
>>
>> would be meaningful.
>>
>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble
>> of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on
>> state ψ.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.
>>
>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.
>>
>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to
>> construct the ψ-measuring machine.
>>
>>
>> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you
>> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG
>
>
> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, and
> the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using the
> exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to build
> the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, but I do see how I can emulate
> it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. (Which is Turing emulate
> and so arithmetic emulates a quantum universal dovetailer, BTW. But if it is
> the winner, that has to be justify from number self-reference logic (as I
> have explained, or see my papers).
>
> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot in
> the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself directly by
> a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to find yourself
> “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!).
>
> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM without
> collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong somewhere.
>
> You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the
> additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem
> oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to
> justify it. AG
Assuming the SWE is enough. That is why the founders invented the collapse
postulate, to avoid the “parallel” branches (which are more like
quasi-perpendicular states).
But the collapse is non linear, non unitary, and is the one in need to be
justified, and that he’s been done by Everett.
The only problem is that Everett use mechanism, and this means we have to
extract the SWE from all computations and self-reference, but this works well,
so ...
Bruno
>
> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open to
> generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is simpler
> than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism, used by Everett, entails a
> theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are provably
> emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality.
>
> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all computations,
> modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential correctness.
> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person, and
> a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks to
> the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended
> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal
> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent
> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable
> notion of world.
>
> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum of
> the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know enough
> of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine, and
> computations, are arithmetical notion, definable entirely in the language of
> first order arithmetic.
>
> Many take granted a primitive or primary physical universe or multiverse, but
> what can be proved is the existence of a multi-dream in arithmetic, with laws
> explaining how the sharable first person plural dreams can converge to local
> appearance of “universe”.
>
> I have no clue, nor even opinion if mechanism is true, but it is a fact that
> the universal machine, in the sense of Turing, have a quite surprising
> theology, in the sense of the Neoplatonists. So we can test the intuitive
> consequences (due to our embedding in infinitely many computations) and the
> formal consequences, like the appearances of a
Re: time arrow, measurement, superposition
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>>
>> Here below a point made by Asher Peres.
>>
>> --
>>
>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern
>> between the cat alive and the cat dead.
>>
>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase *θ* in
>> the state
>>
>> *ψ* = 2-1/2[ |live> + *exp(i**θ**)*|dead>]
>>
>> would be meaningful.
>>
>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an
>> ensemble of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection
>> operator on state ψ.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.
>>
>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.
>>
>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.
>>
>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to
>> construct the ψ-measuring machine.
>>
>
> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you
> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG
>
>
>
> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, and
> the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using the
> exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to
> build the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, but I do see how I can
> emulate it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. (Which is Turing
> emulate and so arithmetic emulates a quantum universal dovetailer, BTW. But
> if it is the winner, that has to be justify from number self-reference
> logic (as I have explained, or see my papers).
>
> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot
> in the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself
> directly by a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to
> find yourself “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!).
>
> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM
> without collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong
> somewhere.
>
*You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the
additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem
oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to
justify it. AG*
>
> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open
> to generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is
> simpler than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism, used by Everett,
> entails a theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are
> provably emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality.
>
> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all
> computations, modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential
> correctness.
> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person,
> and a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks
> to the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended
> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal
> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent
> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable
> notion of world.
>
> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum of
> the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know
> enough of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine,
> and computations, are arithmetical notion, definable entirely in the
> language of first order arithmetic.
>
> Many take granted a primitive or primary physical universe or multiverse,
> but what can be proved is the existence of a multi-dream in arithmetic,
> with laws explaining how the sharable first person plural dreams can
> converge to local appearance of “universe”.
>
> I have no clue, nor even opinion if mechanism is true, but it is a fact
> that the universal machine, in the sense of Turing, have a quite surprising
> theology, in the sense of the Neoplatonists. So we can test the intuitive
> consequences (due to our embedding in infinitely many computations) and the
> formal consequences, like the appearances of a quantum logic.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: time arrow, measurement, superposition
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > Here below a point made by Asher Peres. > > -- > > One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern > between the cat alive and the cat dead. > > If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase *θ* in > the state > > *ψ* = 2-1/2[ |live> + *exp(i**θ**)*|dead>] > > would be meaningful. > > One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an > ensemble of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection > operator on state ψ. > > In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ. > > Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead. > > In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive. > > I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to > construct the ψ-measuring machine. > Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG -- 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.
time arrow, measurement, superposition
Here below a point made by Asher Peres. -- One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern between the cat alive and the cat dead. If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the state ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>] would be meaningful. One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on state ψ. In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ. Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead. In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive. I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to construct the ψ-measuring machine. -- 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.
