[ExI] Bell's Inequality
jasonresch at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 05:53:47 UTC 2016
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But experiments do have only one outcome, as experienced and observed by
> >> the experimenters. Any alternate worlds are immeasurable and may as
> >> not exist.
> > ### If you were to say that only the observed experimental outcomes
> > then you imply there is something qualitatively different between the
> > of the wavefunction we do experience and the parts that we don't.
> Science is all about observability, measurement, and what actually
> exists. If you wish to speculate that something that is never
> measurable, observable, or otherwise detectable must still exist, you
> need evidence.
The other universes are detectable and they do effect our universe, e.g.
Furthermore, you must accept the reality of the wave function (and all its
branches) in order to explain how quantum computers work.
Whether we can directly observe some phenomenon or not is irrelevant, we
can't observe the inside of black holes, beyond the cosmological horizon,
the future, things outside our light cone, etc., yet we would all agree
those things exist. What matters is whether these other universes are
predicted to exist and consequences of our best theories.
The evidence for these other branches includes all the evidence we have for
quantum mechanics. Indefensible mental gymnastics are required to believe
in both QM but deny the reality of the wave function and its many histories.
> > But the other worlds actually *are* measurable - we can calculate from
> > principles the distribution of outcomes for increasingly more complex
> > quantum systems, and when we probe parts of the distribution in repeated
> > experiments, the predictions tend to agree with outcomes to 7 significant
> > digits or so. So, we can't "see" the alternate worlds but sure we can
> > measure them.
> The correctness of the prediction of the distribution says nothing
> about whether other worlds (presumably you mean with different
> distributions) exist.
> > There is another wrinkle for the Copenhagen believers - imagine that you
> > ab initio calculate the distribution of outcomes in an experiment that
> > generates conscious observers
> > But will the imaginary conscious observers you generate by the dozen in
> > of your experiments take their ghostly status lying down?
> Yes. They are generated by the experiment; they do not have the
> ability to retroactively change the result of things before they were
> generated. (No, there is no "but at the moment of their generation"
> confusion: first they are generated, then they have a span of
> consciousness. Consciousness is over a span of time, which like all
> spans has a beginning and an end - granted, this span may also include
> interruptions such as sleep.) Therefore their potential
> post-experimental existence can not change the outcome, so they have
> no choice but to accept the results.
> It's like a certain basilisk AI, whose full name some members of this
> list would feel better if I did not spell out. Hypothetically, it
> will resurrect (via simulation if necessary) everyone who knew it
> could exist but failed to devote their efforts to bring about its
> existence - basically God, with everlasting Heaven for its loyal
> people and everlasting Hell for any uncooperatives (and not bothering
> with the unenlightened masses who never heard of it). But that
> requires that it will exist, and will turn out that way, which is not
> guaranteed to be the world that we eventually face; the mere
> possibility does not change this.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat