[ExI] teachers

Tue Aug 29 19:44:10 UTC 2023

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 7:11 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 1:25 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:53 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 12:14 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:26 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also disagree with the assessment that MW is not falsifiable. If we
>>>>>> run a conscious mind on a quantum computer, and the quantum computation
>>>>>> fails due to the consciousness of the mind on the computer causing
>>>>>> collapse, and it eliminates the interference pattern, then MW is falsified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is David Deutsch's description of the experiment:
>>>>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/4rrNMdbmSsHGsLkh9
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How is MW falsified in this case?  There can exist events which are
>>>>> the same in all worlds that had the same starting condition,  and we would
>>>>> never  know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's only falsified if the interference pattern isn't restored after
>>>> quantum erasing the conscious observer's mind.
>>>>
>>>> Collapse theories say collapse happens by the time or during conscious
>>>> observation, and that it is irreversible and destroys the interference
>>>> pattern.
>>>>
>>>> MW on the other hand does not say (apparent) collapse is irreversible,
>>>> but that everything is linear, continuous and time reversible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about MW says things are time reversible?
>>>
>>
>> Everything in physics is time reversible (more accurately is CPT
>> symmetric https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry ), with the sole
>> except being objective wave function collapse as found in CI.
>>
>> Take out wave function collapse, and everything in physics becomes
>> deterministic, reversible, causal, linear, local, and speed-of-light
>> obeying again.
>>
>
> Not so much, unless you're broadly defining "wave function collapse" as
> everything in physics that is undeterministic et al.
>

To my knowledge, wave function collapse is *the only* thing in physics
that's considered to not be deterministic. If you think otherwise I ask you
to identify one other thing which isn't.

  For instance, I have not often heard the exact timing of atomic decay to
> be any sort of wave function collapse,
>

It involves collapse under the traditional CI. This is why particle decay
is used as the basis of Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. If we don't
open the box (and observe it) then the particle is in a superposition of
having collapsed and not collapsed.

yet it does not appear to be deterministic.
>

The unstable particle evolves deterministically under the Shrodinger
equation to a superposition of having not decayed, and having decayed at
various points in time. There's no indeterminism or uncertainty in the time
evolution of the particle under MW.

It only appears random due to your inability to predict which branch of the
wave function you will find yourself in when you interact with this
particle and discover whether or not it has decayed in the branch you are
then in.

(It is technically possible to jam the emitted particle back into the
> source atom, which I suppose makes it reversible.)
>

Putting the particle back together does not reverse the fact that it
decayed. Nor is this what I mean when I speak about time reversibility.

Reversibility requires one definite state always follows from another. With
collapse, this is not the case, we have a break in the unitary time
evolution of the Shrodinger equation. That is to say, if we tried to rewind
time starting from this collapsed state, wouldn't end up getting back to
the original starting state of the system (before the time the collapse
occurred).

  There are also many discontinuities, across a number of domains, that
> break linear models.
>

Name one.

> Also, you avoided the question.  WHAT IS IT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MW IN
> PARTICULAR, as distinct from everything in physics, that has this property
> and that other quantum theories do not?
>

I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you have misunderstood me.

It is MW that is consistent with all other physical theories in being
causal, local, deterministic, linear, differentiable, sub-luminal,
non-psychokinetic, unitary, CPT symmetric, etc. (because it doesn't assume
collapse is real, but rather  it explains why we would see something like
it even though it is only apparent).

It is wave function collapse that dispenses with all these principles that
are present in all other physical theories. Wave function collapse is the
only phenomenon in physics that's a causal, non-local, non-linear,
non-differentiable, super-luminal, psychokinetic, non-unitary,
CPT-asymmetric, etc. It can't even describe a system of two observers
consistently, so we might also say it is solipsistic. Nor can it describe a
universe without observers, such as the early universe, so we might also
say it is non-real.

There appear to exist theories of multi-worlds that are entirely compatible
> with the existence of wave function collapse, therefore, proving or
> disproving the existence of wave function collapse fails to prove or
> disprove multi-worlds in general.
>

There are various multiverse theories, yes.

But MW is simply QM without collapse. If you believe in QM, and if you
disprove collapse, then you are left with "QM without collapse", which
implies a quantum multiverse, i.e., "many worlds."

>
>> If a collapse is subsequently observed, can't one simply claim the
>>> erasure hasn't happened?
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what you are asking, but if the reversal
>> process fails, and we can't get the electron back into a superposition, it
>> would be evidence of the reality of collapse, and MW would be refuted.
>>
>
> 1) MW-with-collapse wouldn't be refuted.
>

I don't know what you mean by "MW with collapse." MW is strictly "QM
without collapse." I don't know what you mean when you say MW with
collapse, as if you have collapse that is CI, which is one world.

> 2) I mean, this seems susceptible to a "no true X" fallacy.  "Just because
> THIS experiment showed collapse, doesn't mean the experiment wouldn't work
> if done properly.
>

If course it has to be done properly for the conclusion to be valid.

  Since there was collapse, obviously there was no quantum erasure.  Keep
> doing the experiment until it shows what we want, and discard all contrary
> results."  How do you conclusively show there was erasure if there was also
> collapse, which erasure should prevent by definition?
>

That is what CI assumes to happen. That, in this case, we could perform a
perfect quantum erasure, but it wouldn't matter, because the wave function
has collapsed and now it's too late.

I won't pretend to explain how that could happen, as even those who believe
in CI, have not succeeded (or to my knowledge, even tried) to describe how,
when, or why collapse happens.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230829/5a74fbb9/attachment.htm>