Sat, 20 Mar 1999 21:01:36 -0800
Matti, there's a bit more at the end of this:
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, ca314159 wrote:
> > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, ca314159 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > > > In QM entanglement is one of the most QM:eish phenomena and plays key
> > > > > role in quantum compute sciencer. Schrodinger cat provides the standard
> > > > > example of entanglement. The state of cat and bottle of poison is
> > > > > superposition of cat dead-bottle open and cat alive-bottle closed states.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The states of entangled particles (events) can both be measured, but
> > > > not so for the dead and alive (states) of a S-cat.
> > >
> > > My viewpoint is that the state of cat can be in principle measured and if
> > > measurement answers to the question 'Dead or alive?' measurement means
> > > quantum jump leading to state 'dead' or 'alive'. Moment of
> > > consciousness is in TGD framework nothing but quantum measurement. Note
> > > also that Schrodinger cat paradox disappears. In entangled states there is
> > > no consciousness: when quantum jumps giving information about the state
> > > of cat happens, it leads to dead or alive state: moment of consciousness
> > > makes world classical.
> > This relates to Jung's "The Transcendental Function".
> > By your definition of consciousness, the wavefunction
> > collapse is a movement from the purely subjective
> > wavefunction[s] of possibilities into the objective (conscious)
> > world where only one of those possibilities (states) remains.
> > The other possibilities were "objectively not real",
> > but because of the lack of determinism they had to be in
> > the origin wavefunction before collapse; just as I would
> > have a wavefunction of two components for a coin in motion
> > for the two possible states of the one event "landing" and
> > that wavefunction collapses into only one state when the
> > coin "lands" heads or tails.
> > While the coin is "in motion" the two possibilities must be
> > included.
> > For Jung's transcendental function, the unconscious mind
> > holds such wavefunctions associatively (in a frequency-space)
> > which sometimes "collapse" into a peak in frequency-space
> > at which time they become noticeable to the "conscious" if the
> > peak is sufficiently strong in intensity.
> > > > The frequency components of a radio wave can be separated, but not
> > > > so for wavefunctions which are abstract probabilistic waves.
> > >
> > > The separation of wave functions is possible when they are unentangled
> > > with states of measuring instrument which in turn are entangled with
> > > states of brain.
> > Here the word "entangled" seems to be an overused term, what Marshall
> > McLuhan would call a "Reversal" or over-amplification of an idea.
> > It is not a "quantum" concept that exists only in quantum theory.
> > Wavefunctions are an abstract model of what is happening when
> > we don't know what is happening (not yet measured) It includes
> > all the possibilities but selects only one of them on measurement.
> > To use the term "entanglement" shrouds what is happening as in a
> > high-level computer language when we really want to be talking
> > in machine code.
> Here I disagree. I believe that wavefunctions, and in TGD configuration
> space spinor fields, are real: they are the objective realities, not only
> representations of realities: representation of reality is the reality
> itself and quantum jumps occur between these realities and give conscious
> information about the realities. Mathematics becomes conscious because
> quantum jumps between these representations/ideas/... are possible: no
> Cartesian separation into reality and its representation anymore(;-).
> [The possibility to interpret many fermion Fock states as Boolean algebra
> elements (yes=fermion number one, no on fermion number 0) supports
> the interpretation of manyfermion states as statements about something,
> that is ideas.]
> Is it really possible to reduce everything to 'bit level'?
> The nonclassicality of quantum entanglement makes it
> impossible to simulate classically the time development by quantum jumps.
> Quantum mechanics is more than probabilistic model because wave functions
> can interfere. Classical double slit experiment is good example of this.
> When both slits are open the interference pattern contains interference
> pattern not allowed by classical probability theory.
I think you've in part misunderstood me here (and I don't blame you,
the language here is tricky). I do not mean "machine code" in terms
of bits but as "a language that is most suited to describe physical
actions". The word "entanglement" does not fit this criteria. It is
not specific enough to contain both physical superpositions and
non-physical superpositions (wavefunctions) with enough distinction.
I agree with you in a certain sense, that wavefunctions are physical,
when a coin is in the air flipping, the two physical possibilites (states)
that exist for the event: "landing", are physically "guided" by the physical
circumstances, such as whether the coin is "loaded" or not.
And so they seem to interefere as you mention. But as the coin example
and makes clear is that you can never measure this without destroying the
"intereference" so to that extent they are not physical because the effect
of "loading" on the coin is defined *probabilistically* and this is not
a physical representation. That's because we gave up trying to
deterministically model such complex phenomena like computing the
gravitational effect on the loaded coin's sides. When we gave up such
determinism we used an abstraction of interfering probability waves
and though they interfere abstractly you cannot measure that interference
without destroying it. The probability waves are abstract but they
represent real physical effects while the coin is in flight.
** But one of the best reasons of why probability waves are not real
is that they represent the best information we have of what we think is
happening. And as a probability theorist once said:
"Even then, we can always lie."
That I hope clinches this arguement on the absense of physical reality in
the wavefunctions themselves.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:50 JST