[ExI] R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:45 AM, scerir at alice.it <scerir at alice.it> wrote:
>
>
> "If you have a pair of dice that are quantum entangled—you can't buy them
> yet but I'm sure in a hundred years you can buy them as a Christmas
> present—a
> pair of quantum dice would be such that if you throw one die here and one
> die
> there they always show the same number. Now this can only be if they have a
> common cause, or if they are talking to each other somehow." A. Zeilinger
>

###  There is a peculiar way in which you could simulate FTL communication,
given a pair of entangled dice and a pair of GLUTs.

Let's say there are dice that cannot be rolled except at specific times (as
measured locally by a device within each die). Such dice could generate a
string of correlated digits at some predefined locally available bitrate,
at arbitrary spatial distances from each other. Such digits could not be
pre-generated ahead of time - they would be dispensed by the dice at a rate
not exceeding the predefined rate.

Let's say you have two minds in the form of GLUTs. These may or may not be
the same but each mind has a copy of each other. The internal states of
each mind would be determined by locally available environmental inputs,
and the correlated digits from the dice.

Now let's move these minds apart, at subluminal speeds, allowing them to
remember the total amount of acceleration they experience (to let them keep
synchronized time), and enough that they leave each other's light cones.
Each mind will continue to be able to predict the internal states of the
other mind by looking up the responses to die-generated digits and to all
possible local environmental inputs. These minds would be in effect
entangled in their mind-states (each corresponding to entries in their
respective GLUTs), as long as they have access to the entangled bit-stream.
Minds sufficiently forgetful, and sufficiently oblivious to local inputs
would be limited in the number of internal states they could have, enough
to make it for each one computationally tractable to define the set of each
other's available states. They would know each other's thoughts, and by
using the entangled bit-streams these thoughts could not be said to be
predetermined in a classical way, like a recording.

Obviously, this is a contrived example, straining the meaning of
"communication" but please note that for an outside observer who does not
have direct access to the content of the GLUTs but who has true FTL
communication, the behavior of the minds would be indistinguishable from
true FTL communication, as long as the minds would observe some
restrictions on what kind of answers and what kind of behaviors they would
exhibit. For example, they might agree to answer questions about each other
only when the answer could be unequivocally computed from (question itself)
+ (entangled bit) + (other mind's GLUT). These could be non-trivial
questions and behaviors, and they would remain unpredictable but correlated
as long as the entangled bit stream would last. Unpredictability and
correlation would prove both the existence of minds (rather than
recordings) and "communication".

However, the same effect could be also simulated by classical means, having
two copies of one-time pads providing the information needed to produce
correlated behavior, which makes the whole story more quotidian.

So, you can't have FTL communication, but you could successfully pretend
you do.

Rafał
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150903/694cafde/attachment.html>