[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Jason Resch jasonresch at gmail.com
Fri Dec 30 22:57:11 UTC 2016

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

But if the wave function is real, then many states are real (so long as the
system is isolated), even in collapse theories that accept the reality of
the wave function (some don't and say only measured values are real).

Therefore, if you have a person in such an isolated state (e.g. Wigner's
Friend), then from Wigner's view, there are many "Wigner's Friends" in many
different states simultaneously.

And if there is no collapse (i.e. observers aren't magic superposition
collapsing machines) this yields many worlds.

> 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.

I'm not supposing that they need to be general purpose, but quantum
computers can implement any algorithm classical computers can:

They just can't accelerate every classical algorithm.

> 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?

The AI is assumed to be a conscious observer. It makes a which-way
observation of a particle in a two slit experiment, records the fact that
it measured a definite result but does not record which slit it passed
through. The computation of that conscious AI observer is then reversed
(quantum erasing it), which should, in theory, restore the interference
pattern. This experiment, if it were run and produced the results I
described, would serve to disprove "consciousness/observation causes
collapse"-type theories.

One of MWI's strongest advocates is David Deutsch
to Deutsch, the single photon interference pattern observed in the double
slit experiment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment> can
be explained by interference of photons in multiple universes. Viewed in
this way, the single photon interference experiment is indistinguishable
from the multiple photon interference experiment. In a more practical vein,
in one of the earliest papers on quantum computing,[85]
suggested that parallelism that results from the validity of MWI could lead
to "*a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed faster
by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it*".
Deutsch has also proposed that when reversible computers
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing> become conscious that
MWI will be testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) via the
reversible observation of spin.[65]

> >> 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.

Did you mean SWE? (Schrodinger Wave Equation?)

MWI is what you get when all you assume is the Schrodinger Wave Equation is
true (and never violated).

> > 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.

Super determinism has to be the most unlikely of all theories, and is
reminiscent of Newton's pre-established harmony.

It also seems like it would require math itself to be superdetermined, what
if I chose what measurements to make based on the digits of Pi? Would Pi
then be superdetermined? Or only my decision to use Pi to guide my

Do you really find the idea that other parts of the wave function are as
real as the one you find yourself in now so distateful that it requires
accepting all the baggage ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/collapse_postulates/
) that comes with rejecting that idea?

> 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
> hole.

I thought Susskind won the bet against Hawking that information was not
destroyed by throwing it into a black hole?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161230/b1d2f0c7/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list