[ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real?
johnkclark at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 22:36:47 UTC 2016
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> QM gurus are hereby invited to say more about the dimensionality of the QM
> state space - does it allow for an infinite number of interactions as time
> goes to infinity?
I'm a pretty poor guru but I will say as its presently constituted QM says
there are only a finite number of states that something can be in, however
that may (or may not) be due to the fact that quantum theory doesn't
include gravity. As it's presently constituted QM can't say what happens in
places smaller than the Planck Length of 1.6*10^-35 meters or what changes
during times shorter than the Planck Time of 5.4*10^-43 seconds. Maybe QM
can't say what happens when things get that small or time gets that short
because there is nothing to say about them because space and time are
quantized. Or maybe something does happen but QM doesn't know what is is
because QM doesn't include gravity. There is no convincing experimental
evidence that space or time is or is not grainy, and until we have a theory
of everything it's hard to even make an educated guess.
> I know, you actually have the opposite intuition, treating even physically
> distinct minds as indiscernible, and you treat multiple similar but
> physically separate minds as equal in value to a single mind. For me this
> is a very surprising intuition.
It wouldn't be surprising if you treated mind as an adjective and not a
noun. Mind (an adjective) is what a brain (a noun) does; and I'll bet you
think it intuitively obvious that 2 different racing cars (nouns) are
both fast (an adjective).
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat