[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't see how we know that any divergent emulation were
instantiated.  All we know for sure is that at least one was: the one
resulting in the resulting state.  We don't know whether any others
existed.

> 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,

I think you mean "small enough".  For large fluids, even a large
number of atoms is still a fluid - but, yes, go small enough and you
are indeed dealing with discrete particles rather than a fluid.

> and this limit is pretty tightly constrained based
> on the some 10^80 number of atoms in this universe.

Granted as a practical limit, but the math and general nature of fluid
dynamics holds up if we were to introduce 10^90 more atoms.

> 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.

For certain definitions of "resources", but it doesn't suggest any of
those resources exist outside of or necessarily spawn other worlds.

> 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).

As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend ?  As the article
notes, the friend could be in a superimposed state.  Another
possibility, which I have illustrated before, is that which way the
experiment would go was determined at least as early as the last
conscious actor performing any action that could influence the
experiment (such as the exact timing of putting the cat in the box),
even if no such actor knew the outcome yet.