[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> One might view the human brain as a kind of quantum computer, in this
> sense.  If so, we can use our own experience as a guide.  (This also
> gives us a limit on what that brain emulation can experience,
> quantum-wise: if we can't experience it - either on our own, or with
> the aid of technology that is at least theoretically possible -
> there's no reason to assume an emulated brain could either.)
>

According to MWI we are already in such an experiment. The difficulty is we
can't prove there is no collapse from our vantage point. Running an
execution of some program on a quantum computer necessitates that there is
no collapse from your point of view. If we run a brain simulation and we
know there is no collapse, then we know some, possibly exponentially
growing, number of divergent emulations of that mind were instantiated in
that superposition.


>
> > 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".
>
> I can experience many simulated worlds myself.  Not one hour ago, I
> was experiencing one that is not our world, via a computer game.  That
> doesn't mean the alternate worlds actually exist (though that
> supposition has inspired many a tale), just that I can conceive of and
> think through them.
>
> There is also the question of how quantum computers work.  As I
> understand it, they are fed a problem for which there are many
> possible solutions, all of which could in theory be evaluated by
> traditional computers in parallel - if you had enough processors.
> Only one solution is correct, though, and that solution gets weighted
> positively while the others are weighted negatively.  You run this
> weighting repeatedly - annealing - until the odds of the quantum state
> representing the single correct solution is very high.
>
> But we already have that, kind of, in fluid dynamics.  Present a fluid
> (say, a gallon of water) with a board through which it can only go at
> one point in one shape, then press the fluid into the board.  Even if
> the fluid is somehow sentient enough to have experiences, it does not
> experience going through at any other point.  But it certainly presses
> against all the other points on the board at the same time.


The difference between quantum computers and fluid dynamics, is that some
large enough problem in fluid dynamics, using this method, will eventually
break down as the finite limited number of atoms leads to the fluid
becoming discrete atoms/molecules, and this limit is pretty tightly
constrained based on the some 10^80 number of atoms in this universe.

Quantum computers, using qubits, can for example, factor the product of any
two prime numbers so long as the quantum computer has at least twice as
many qubits as it takes to represent the number being factored. So a number
that is 10,000 bits long could be factored by a quantum computer with
20,000 qubits. However, this quantum computer, which could fit on your
tabletop, is effectively exploring 2^10,000 possibilities, more
possibilities by far than atoms in the observable universe, and it does so
near instantaneously. A classical computer, on the other hand, even if it
were so big it used all the atoms in the observable universe and it ran
until the heat death of the universe, would likely never find the answer.

This is why fact that quantum computers can be built so strongly suggests
the existence/reality/and effective causality of vast unseen resources
present throughout the (now assuredly very real) wave function. We may not
be able to observe other branches of the wave function directly, but their
shadows make their presence known to us. Once one accepts the reality of
the wave function, all that is required to get to many worlds is to assume
yourself as Wigner's Friend (in the thought experiment).

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161215/2e08c5f3/attachment.html>