On 04-Sep-02, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Hal Finney
wrote:
Tim May wrote:
In weaker forms of the MWI, where it's the early state
of the Big Bang (for example) which are splitting off
into N universes, De Witt and others have speculated (as
early as
Hi Tim,
Because you motivated us with Smolin's three roads to quantum gravity,
let me tell you that, modulo vocabulary, I tend to be 100% ok with
what Smolin summarizes in his chapter 3 many observers not many worlds,
including his psychological move with the reference of toposes in
consistent
At 20:58 -0700 4/09/2002, Brent Meeker wrote:
The second problem has to do with time and casuality. At
a microscopic level QM is time symmetric. If we say there
is no real collapse of the wave function - all evolution
is unitary (and therefore reversible) - then it seems we
should from
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 04-Sep-02, Tim May wrote:
By the way, issues of observers and measurements are
obviously fraught with Chinese boxes types of problems.
In the Schrodinger's Cat pedantic example, if the cat
alive or cat dead measurement is made at the end of one
hour by opening
On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 09:34 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
But even if one understands that conscious observers are not necessary
to collapse the wave function, Tim's questions do not go away. One
could always imagine that the box in the Schroedinger's cat experiment
was made of
Yes, this is similar to the Wigner's friend thought-experiment.
Wigner later (1983) changed opinion and wrote
that decoherence forbids superposition of states like
c1 |s 1 |friend 1 + c2 |s 2 |friend 2
After that in QM the conscious being - i.e. the friend
who tells that he
hi all.
the dialogue here on everything-list is extremely interesting I know
several subscribers/participants from long ago acquaintances.
I was tipped off on this list by scerir, who posts regularly
on qm2 whom I have a lot of admiration for!!
he has some really outstanding credentials
scerir wrote:
Wigner later (1983) changed opinion and wrote
that decoherence forbids superposition of states like
c1 |s 1 |friend 1 + c2 |s 2 |friend 2
After that in QM the conscious being - i.e. the friend
who tells that he already knows whether the outcome is
|s 1 or |s 2 - plays no
Jesse Mazer wrote:
But can decoherence really forbid macroscopic superpositions in principle,
or only in practice? To build quantum computers, people have to figure out
clever tricks to keep fairly large systems in quantum coherence, even though
under normal circumstances decoherence would
J. Mazer [about Wigner and consciousness]
Did Wigner only believe this until his change of opinion in 1983, or did he
continue to think this way afterwards?
Wigner wrote (Nov. 18, 1978) ...
... as far as living organism of any complexity are concerned, the same
initial state hardly can be
Hi,
Regarding NEP; it's a quite popular figure of merit among us optical and
infrared detector engineers. See for instance, R.H.Kingston, Detection of
Optical and Infrared Radiation. I have a couple dozen other books with
various approaches to the derivation; it's straight-forward.
L.W.
J. Mazer:
But can decoherence really forbid macroscopic superpositions in principle,
or only in practice?
Well, experiments have been done many times, showing
the effect of decoherence on (macroscopic) quantum superpositions
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/8/3/1
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:51:09PM +1000, Russell Standish wrote:
This set of all descriptions is the Schmidhuber approach, although he
later muddies the water a bit by postulating that this set is generated
by a machine with resource constraints (we could call this Schmidhuber
II :). This
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thurs. Sept. 5, 2002 5:07PM
Wei Dai,
Good! I will try to access the paper almost immediately. I have long
been partial to FTL as a conjecture. When Professor Nimtz of U.
Koln/Cologne came up with his results, or shortly thereafter, and
interpreted
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thurs. Sept. 5, 2002 5:43PM
I have accessed the paper by Yurstever, and I want to mention that I have
been pursuing the algorithmic incompressibility thread on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] in connection with supersymmetric theories of
memory. The reception there
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thurs. Sept. 5, 2002 6:17PM
I have now read page 2 of Yurtsever, having previous read page 1, and I must
confess that his style does not quite have the clarity of my style - his is
more like the clarity of Sigmund Freud's style : ) However, I am happy
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:48:38AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
And, putting in a plug for modal/topos logic, the essence of nearly
every interpretation, whether MWI or Copenhagen or even Newtonian, is
that observers at time t are faced with unknowable and branching
futures.
How useful is modal
Wei writes:
I just found a paper which shows that if apparent quantum randomness has
low algorithmic complexity (as Schmidhuber II predicts), then FTL
communications is possible.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806059
This was an interesting paper but unfortunately the key point seemed
to
Brent Meeker wrote:
OK, consider a single excited hydrogen atom in a perfectly
reflecting box. Has it emitted a photon or not? QM will
predict a superposition of photon+H and H-excited in which
the amplitude for H-excited decays exponentially with time.
But the exponential decay is only
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thurs. Sept. 5, 2002 10:25PM
I don't know whether Hal Finney is right or wrong after reading pages 5-8 of
Yurtsever, since Yurtsever writes like David Deutsch and Julian Brown and so
many other members of the quantum entanglement school - no matter how
20 matches
Mail list logo
