[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Jason Resch jasonresch at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 13:25:40 UTC 2016


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > MWI explains how quantum computers can work. The other collapse-theories,
> > cannot.
>
> This at least acknowledges the objection that I raised, for which I thank
> you.
>
> I grant, and I think you do as well, that there exist quantum
> computers, with directly observed patterns of input and output, and
> time taken to do said processing that is shorter than a normal
> computer.  I believe we can further agree that this rules out some of
> the alternatives to MWI.
>

Correct, I would say it definitively rules out the alternatives that deny a
reality to the wave function.


>
> However, to my knowledge, there exist other alternate theories that
> can explain this just as well as MWI, which leaves a group of theories
> including MWI which quantum computers can not distinguish between.
> This alternate specifically includes that, rather than us landing in
> one of the multiple co-existing resulting worlds as in MWI, only one
> such world exists, even if the determinant of which one (e.g., exactly
> when a given atom decays) is random, similar to MWI's selector of all
> the prior events that resulted in our present world.  (In other words,
> the reason why a given coin flip went one way or the other, once that
> flip has already happened and we are looking at a past event, is
> roughly the same in MWI as in single-world, the only difference being
> that those other worlds in which the coin flipped the other way or
> landed on edge - which are undetectable in MWI - don't actually
> exist.)
>

Given that the existence of quantum computers (I actually got to see one in
person a few days ago) asserts the reality of the wave function, the next
step to get to MWI is to imagine a future quantum computer that can run a
brain emulation. Now we ask, "How many worlds does this simulated mind
experience, as the wave function explores all possibilities (before it
collapses from our vantage point)?" The answer can't possibly be 1, for we
know the wave function is real, and it is in a superposition of many
states. You could perhaps argue 0, if you reject the computational theory
of mind. Otherwise, I think you must conclude "many".

Jason


> The distinction may rest on whether the alternatives that I am aware
> of, you define as "collapse theories" or some other kind of theories
> (that, while not "collapse theories", are still alternatives to MWI).
>
> So, might I ask you to explain how the alternative theories can not
> explain the observed behavior of quantum computers?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161214/5b6080a2/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list