[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Fri Dec 30 20:55:36 UTC 2016

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Assume MWI, therefore MWI."  Sorry, that's circular reasoning.
> But what, in "wave function isn't really real"-theories, can explain the
> computational power of quantum computers?

"Not MWI" doesn't mean "not wave function".  MWI isn't the only
possible explanation of the wave function.

Also, the way you're phrasing it seems to suggest you think quantum
computers have been proven to be general purpose, rather than usable
only for a few specific types of problems.  There is hope that they
are, but they aren't yet, and we don't know for sure that they can be.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 has a good summary.

>> There's just as much to motivate that theory as there is MWI - to wit,
>> nothing that proves either way.
> There are proposed experiments that can prove it either way. E.g. a
> reversible quantum computer running an AI. Or, using currently available
> technology, quantum suicide: an iterated version of Schrodinger's cat, with
> you as the cat.

You'd need an observer that can report results when dead - i.e., when
not making more observations.  Unless you mean something far more
trivial, in which case why hasn't that experiment been run yet?

>> If we're using Occam's Razor (which, granted, I have been), then
>> predetermination (with possible exception for conscious actors, up
>> until their last action that could influence a given result) seems
>> simpler than MWI, as it does not assume anything we can not observe.
> You would need to add a lot of additional postulates to the theory of QM to
> explain how and when collapse occurs, what about observers enables them to
> initiate a collapse, etc. But none of this math is needed. The regular
> existing postulates of QM can explain the appearance of wave function
> collapse, and do not need to assume it.

That paragraph fails to note anything that would be needed for SWI
that would not also be needed for MWI.

> Moreover, if collapse is real, it would be the only thing in physics that is
> irreversible, fundamentally random, not time symmetric, has
> faster-than-light influences, etc.

If you mean collapse of quantum entanglement, superdetermination does
not posit faster than light influences.

And yes, QM does produce fundamentally random results, and is not time
symmetric.  This is generally accepted.  Black hole evaporation
generally seems irreversible too, though you can make another black

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list