Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 9/21/19 at 3:20am UTC, wrote 'Sharp comb" and 'shredder' are used as similes and metaphors because the...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/21/19 at 1:14am UTC, wrote I might be able to improve on that description. It's early days.If it is a...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/21/19 at 1:02am UTC, wrote That's OK Robert.I'm happy doing my own thing. I'm more interested in ...

Robert McEachern: on 9/20/19 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote Georgina, It is difficult for me to give you any meaningful advice, since...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/20/19 at 6:10am UTC, wrote Sorry... Imperfections and single bit information, as you say.

Georgina Woodward: on 9/19/19 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote "Endless speculation" is hardly a fair description. I have admitted I've...

Robert McEachern: on 9/19/19 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote "I was thinking also there may be something wrong with the classical idea...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/19/19 at 3:06am UTC, wrote No Robert I don't think something odd is going on in Dirac's experiment. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "It am all very well for Professor Carroll to be awarded funds for adding to..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Zeeya Merali, I suspect my post "on 9/18/19 at 15:39pm UTC, [I] wrote..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Why avoid the alien? I am a Stranger in a Strange Land. Philospher,..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Georgina Woodward: "'Sharp comb" and 'shredder' are used as similes and metaphors because the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, Let’s take an example: E= mc[sup]2[/sup]. It is an equation..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Jason Wolfe: "I cannot say that I am enthusiastic about where philosophy has led us. We..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Jason Wolfe: "How can there be any talk of determinism when the real world is built upon..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "I might be able to improve on that description. It's early days.If it is a..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
September 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Schrödinger’s Zombie: Adam Brown at the 6th FQXi Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger George Musser wrote on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 19:30 GMT
Adam Brown
Forget the cat: what if you put a computer into the Schrödinger thought experiment? You could make the computer both run and not run, at once, and that’s just a warm-up. You could, in fact, make it not run and nonetheless extract the answer to a computation. The computer will be sitting there waiting for someone to press “Run,” yet will have produced a result. It sounds impossible by definition, but that’s quantum physics for you. This idea of counterfactual computation is not just a thought experiment; there are computers in the physics labs of the world that have done this.

At the recently concluded FQXi meeting in Tuscany, Adam Brown of Stanford University grabbed hold of counterfactual computation and ran with it. What if the computer is set up to perform a brain simulation? You could ascertain what that brain would be thinking even if it is not, in fact, thinking. Whether a simulated brain is conscious is a contentious question, but suppose it is. Then you could create a mind that acts in the world, yet lacks first-person experience—a philosophical zombie. What is more, you can decide the circumstances under which the mind will be conscious or not; it might revel in happy sensations, but have no experience of sad ones. Brown’s talk put a new spin on old problems in the philosophy of mind and personal identity.

Free Podcast

Quantum Mind Reading. Could we create a quantum experiment to predict what a person will do, without having to simulate their consciousness? Physicist Adam Brown argues a classic quantum "bomb tester" proposed in the 1990s could be modified to do just that.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Of all the many wonderful talks I’ve heard at these meetings over the years, Brown’s stands out as one of the most quintessentially FQXi: uninhibited and unpigeonholeable, less about the conclusion than about the steps leading up to it. “I am not really a quantum information theorist, and I’m really not a philosopher,” he admitted at the outset. “But what I am is amongst friends, so I hope you will take this in that spirit.”

Speaking of being amongst friends, let me put out a general-purpose disclaimer of my own. In this post, I will streamline the experimental descriptions, departing slightly from the authors’ original presentations, while staying true to the physics. Also, I will steer clear of the interpretation of quantum mechanics and focus on what we directly observe in these experiments. We will have plenty of interpreting to do as it is.

Please Do Interfere

Counterfactual computing is nothing so straightforward as predicting what the computer’s output will be. It’s not like saying that you know the computer would beep if you pressed a key, but you don’t press that key. In fact, the machine’s output could be unpredictable and, under ordinary circumstances, the only way to know what it will do is to run it. Yet quantum physics can obtain a prediction even so. It works because, in the quantum realm, things that can happen, but don’t, can leave their mark on what does.

The principle of doing something without doing it goes back to the earliest days of quantum theory. Physicists came up with ways to measure a particle without interacting with it (the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment), to affect a charged particle without exerting any force on it (the Aharonov-Bohm effect), and to collapse a wavefunction without measuring it (the Renninger negative-result experiment). Tellingly, these authors were critics of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. They were after features of the theory that challenged the conventional wisdom.

The specific idea of counterfactual computation grew out of a proposal in 1991 by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman, both then at Tel Aviv University. They suggested creating a superposition of two possibilities, then un-creating it, which should restore the initial state—unless something happened in the interim to either of the superposed possibilities. Even if something could have happened, but didn’t, it will prevent you from reconstituting the original.

Their proposed experiment uses a quantum interferometer. You fire particles at a beamsplitter, which directs them randomly one way or the other. For photons, a half-silvered mirror does the trick; half reflect off and half pass through. Or you also glue two triangular prisms together to form a little cube; half the photons will leave through one face and half through another. The two paths diverge and meet again at a second beamsplitter. That beamsplitter, likewise, directs the particles one way or another, where detectors await them.

Credit: Adam Brown


Even before you introduce a counterfactual, this setup violates classical intuitions. If beamsplitters were simply gates that shunted particles either left or right, half would land in one detector, half in the other. What we observe, though, is that all land in one detector. That means the first beamsplitter must be causing each particle to go both left and right—a superposition of the two paths. When the two paths meet at the second beamsplitter, they interfere with each other, which closes off one of the directions the particle might have taken. So, the second beamsplitter reverses the operation of the first: if the first splits one particle in two, the second combines two into one.

The fun begins when you stick an obstacle into one of the two paths. Then the two paths no longer meet at the second beamsplitter. No interference occurs. Now the first beamsplitter does act like a simple gate, sending particles just one way or the other at random. Half the time, neither detector clicks—the particle must have gone down the blocked path. The other half, one of the two detectors clicks, at random—the particle has evidently reached the second beamsplitter and been steered to one of the detectors.

Credit: Adam Brown


The upshot is that, if the quiet detector starts to click, you know that someone has inserted an obstacle into the system. The converse is not true: if the normally active detector goes off, there might or might not be a blockage. This system thus acts as an obstacle-detector. What is counterfactual about it is that the particle was supposed to be blocked, but there it is, exiting the apparatus. The only effect of the obstacle has been to alter its exit point. Evidently the particle must not, in fact, have hit the obstacle, but nonetheless felt its presence.

As with much else in quantum physics, the core weirdness is the uneasy mix of particle and wave behavior. Without the blockage, the photon acts like a wave. It divides at the first beamsplitter and reunites at the second, like an ocean wave parting around an island. With the blockage, it’s like a particle, delivering all its energy in one lump. The counterfactual detection of the obstacle leverages this duality. Elitzur and Vaidman described this as an instance of quantum nonlocality: the presence of an obstacle affects the output not by any mechanistic process that you can trace out step by step, but by the sensitivity of the output to the system in its entirety.

Bomb Squad

Elitzur and Vaidman put the blowing into mind-blowing by imagining a hair-trigger bomb as the obstacle. If so much as a single particle falls on this bomb, it detonates. If someone opposing your tenure case plants such a bomb in your apparatus, you will hear one of two things when you perform the experiment: a loud bang, or a gentle click from the normally inactive detector. If the latter, the instrument will have detected the bomb without interacting with it—an otherwise impossible feat.

Credit: Adam Brown


Clever though this bomb-sniffer may be, please don’t trust your life with it. Because the beamsplitters divide their beams evenly, the system will set off the bomb half the time; the other half, it will reveal the bomb with only 50-percent likelihood. In all, it has only a one-in-three chance of giving you advance warning. You can do better by modifying the beamsplitters to send fewer particles down the pathway that might contain a bomb, which reduces the probability of an explosion. The tradeoff is that it also also reduces the probability of a safe detection. Favoring one path over the other weakens the interference effect at the second beamsplitter, and some particles will leak through to the normally inactive detector. You will get false positives, suggesting the presence of a bomb where there is none. Put simply, if you avoid an explosion by not bothering to look, you are none the wiser about whether a bomb is there.

But Paul Kwiat of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his colleagues came up with a way to evade this tradeoff. It makes use of the so-called quantum Zeno effect, which, in this case, simply means running the check multiple times. Each time, the system adjusts the probability of sending a particle down the potentially bomb-ridden path. On its first attempt, it tries a very low probability. If a bomb lurks in the system, it will probably not detonate, but its presence nonetheless prevents interference from occurring at the second beamsplitter. If the system is bomb-free, interference does occur, but only weakly.

To create a cleaner distinction, the particles loop back for another pass through the apparatus. Based on the results of the first round, the system adjusts the probability of sending particles down the potentially bomb-ridden path. If it sensed even the whiff of interference, suggesting the path is clear, it nudges the probability up; otherwise, it keeps the probability low. If a bomb is present, it is no likelier to detonate than before, but if it isn’t, the interference is somewhat stronger. Crucially, the system can make these adjustments using passive optical elements, without detecting the photons, which would spoil the interference rather than amplify it.

After enough rounds, the system has shifted from sending few particles down the potentially bomb-ridden path to sending all of them, having ascertained that there is no risk of explosion. At this point, the bomb and bombless states are completely distinct, avoiding false positives. Only then do you steer the particles into the detectors to see which of those states the system is in.

An entertaining noir film about the bomb tester, created by Dag Kaszlikowski of the Centre for Quantum Technologies and set on the mean streets of Singapore, won the 2014 FQXi video contest.



Kwiat and his colleagues wrote up a Scientific American article in 1996 that clarifies the procedure.

Seeing in the Dark

Once you realize that you can interact without interacting, all manners of possibilities open up. Kwiat and his colleagues used the scheme to take microscope images of hairs, wires, and fibers without shining light on them (Physical Review A 58, 605-608, arXiv:quant-ph/9803060 (1998)). Vaidman suggested that biologists could take x-ray images of cells without causing radiation damage arXiv:quant-ph/9610033 (1996). Jian-Wei Pan of the University of Science and Technology of China and colleagues transmitted an image using hardly any photons. Roger Penrose of Oxford, in Shadows of the Mind, puckishly suggested that Orthodox Jews could use the system on the Sabbath to turn on a light without touching its switch.

In one especially interesting variant, Lucien Hardy of the Perimeter Institute showed how the bomb itself could be placed into superposition (Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981 (1992)). He added a second interferometer that contained an antiparticle. It overlapped the first interferometer, so that the antiparticle could meet the particle and annihilate it in a minor explosion. Hardy originally imagined using electrons and positrons, but experimental demonstrations have used photons, which wipe each other out not by particle-antiparticle annihilation, but by mutual negation in a beamsplitter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030401 (2005)) or nonlinear optical crystal (Phys.Rev.Lett.102:020404 (2009)). On occasion, the normally inactive detectors of both interferometers click, indicating that an annihilation took place—but if it did, how did particles manage to reach the detectors? The scenario came to be known as “Hardy’s paradox,” although Hardy did not use the word “paradox” himself. A paradox arises only if you suppose the particles must always have well-defined positions.

Counterfactual Computing

In the most astounding proposal of all, Richard Jozsa of Cambridge proposed in 1998 that you could swap the bomb for a computer (arXiv:quant-ph/9805086 (1998)). The particle is its on/off switch. Just as you can detect a bomb without interacting with it, you can obtain the output of the computer without running it.

Jozsa imagined a rudimentary computer that outputs a single bit. A value of 0 is like the absence of a bomb; an output of 1 is like the presence. If the normally inactive detector clicks, the output must be 1—and the computer has yielded a result even though it wasn’t run. You can confirm that by looking at the machine. It will still be in its initial state, never having performed the computation. Yet its mere presence skewed the interferometer.

Like the bomb tester, this system often produces ambiguous results. You can do a bit better by augmenting it with the Zeno procedure.You set the probability of running the computer low at first and, as long as its output remains 0, gradually ratchet up that probability. By the end, an output of 1 is unambiguously a counterfactual output. Even that isn’t perfect, though. If the result of the computation is 0, the computer will run. There’s no way to perform a computation that is counterfactual no matter what the output is. In a follow-up paper, Jozsa and Graeme Mitchison of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge showed that this tradeoff is unavoidable. A counterfactual computer can never deliver complete certainty about both output values because its very functioning depends on uncertainty: that it might or might not run.

Kwiat and his team built such a machine in 2006 (Nature 439, 949–952 (2006)). Their computer returned two bits, indicating which of a set of four items met some criterion, using a famous algorithm developed by Lov Grover. The researchers placed it into one path of an interferometer. Running this computer is like exploding the bomb: it absorbs the particle, neither detector clicks, and you have to read the output from the machine itself.

The system produced one of three outcomes. Half the time, neither of the interferometer detectors clicked, meaning the computer ran. The counterfactual aspect failed in these cases, but at least the team had a very nice implementation of Grover’s algorithm (the best to date). A quarter of the time, the normally active detector clicked, which told them nothing: the computer may or may not have run. The remaining quarter, the normally inactive detector clicked, indicating that the computer did not run, but nonetheless gave a partial output. The researchers proposed stringing together a series of such interferometers to extract the rest of the output.

So what’s it good for? Josza suggested that counterfactual computation was yet another odd effect that quantum computers might someday harness, and Kwiat and his colleagues suggested that it might be adapted to reduce the errors that quantum computers are prone to. These uses are far off, at best. Brown, in his talk at the FQXi meeting, offered a more immediate application: for philosophy.

A New Breed of Zombie

Brown connected counterfactual computation to philosophical puzzles having to do with the mind. “There is, in fact, a reason you should care about whether the computation happened or not, and that’s if what the computation is doing is simulating your thought process,” he said.

Credit: Adam Brown
Suppose you program a computer to simulate a conscious mind. By putting this computer into an interferometer, you can predict what the mind will do without running the simulation. “Using counterfactual cognition, you can simulate what somebody’s going to do—you can predict what they’re going to do—without simulating them,” Brown said.

“Predict” is perhaps too weak a word. A simulated mind is a mind in its own right. You are not just predicting what the mind will do, but letting it do it. If you ask it to add 2 and 2, it will respond as readily as the original. Many philosophers and neuroscientists think a simulated mind is as conscious as the original—that is the premise of many a Black Mirror episode.

From the outside, the counterfactual mind seems identical to the original or simulated mind. Its output is the same. From the inside, though, the difference is profound. The counterfactual mind doesn’t have an inside. It is a philosophical zombie. In the taxonomy of zombies, it is even weirder than other breeds, because not only is it not conscious, it doesn’t even exist. It remains a potentiality inside the computer, awaiting an “on” signal that never came.

I don’t think this principle is limited to computer simulations. Why not insert an actual living brain into the interferometer and use the particle to control its state of consciousness? That would bypass the controversial question of whether a simulation has the same experience as the original. If the brain’s nerve connections to the body are preserved, it might move an arm without going through conscious deliberation. The brain will sometimes be fully present and sometimes a zombie.

You do run into the tradeoff that Mitchison and Jozsa talked about: not all results can be obtained counterfactually, so the mind will sometimes run and sometimes not. But Brown—in what was the most remarkable part of an already remarkable talk—made a virtue of this defect. Suppose you are simulating a mind that is making some big life decision. Such decisions are hard; with all the variables involved, you can never be sure which choice will make you happy or sad. But you can arrange the counterfactual procedure to execute only the happy outcomes and leave the sad ones unimplemented. Thus you could guarantee that any minds you conjure up will be happy. Indeed, you could apply that insight to an entire virtual universe, so that only universes that maximize the happiness of their occupants (or some other desirable outcome) were brought into existence.

Brown speculated that such a scenario bears on the problem of evil in theology. Even an omniscient creator faces a problem of prediction. If it wants to create a universe where good outweighs evil, it must, in effect, run a simulation first. But such a simulation is a universe in its own right. It seems the creator cannot avoid creating creatures that suffer. But counterfactual creation allows God to create a universe where good is guaranteed to outweigh evil.

These teleological outcomes can occur even at a more humble level. The conditions a physicist imposes at the end of an experiment can determine what happened during the experiment or whether the experiment is even performed. You can ensure that outcomes you don’t like never came to pass. “If you weren’t going to get the answer you didn’t like, then, in a wavefunction-weighted Born sense, you never instantiated that possibility to being with,” Brown said. That might have practical significance. When evaluating the efficiency of a quantum algorithm, researchers typically count how many times the computer performs certain operations, and Brown suggested they shoudn’t count operations that never occur.

If nothing else, I think Brown’s talk proves that physicists still have much thinking to do about quantum counterfactuality. If the potential and the actual blur together, perhaps you should conclude not that you haven’t run the computer, but that, by prepping the computer, you have run it—that there is no difference between running and not running, and computation is the structure of the machine, not it its dynamics.

One thing is clear: there is nothing counterfactual about how amazing quantum physics can be.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 02:11 GMT
Thought experiment: Apparatus 1. A water inlet joined to a water filled channel that splits into two paths which after some distance, say 1/2 meter rejoin into one channel, leading to an interference detector and beyond a sink. Introduce near the inlet a vibrating rubber duck. Expected result interference detected as the disturbance of the water passes down the channel not taken to interfere with the disturbance travelling with the duck. Apparatus 2. One of the channels is blocked after a short distance, like 15 cm. Expected result. No interference and duck if it has taken the open path or no interference and duck if trapped in blocked channel. For this to work as an analogy the paths the photon might take must not be empty of medium that surrounds and supports/embodies the photon. The disturbance of the medium associated with a photon can be divided.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 02:21 GMT
I am not equating a photon to a vibrating rubber duck. The purpose of the duck is only to provide disturbance of the water medium. The photon is "duck-less" disturbance. An electron, having mass is likely more like the duck, I.E what can be regarded as an object (with mass) and not just a phenomenon. This type of thought experiment, water and vibrating duck, can be used for the double slit experiment too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 03:10 GMT
The dimensions of the apparatus, distances, width of channel, arrangement of the channels and vibration intensity and frequency may all need adjustment to get the desired demo. in real life.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 10, 2019 @ 19:57 GMT
It may be necessary to allow some water to get around the obstacle, and or through it so that the duck is drawn into and remains in the blocked channel. That is something else that can be investigated and adjusted in real life.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 15:18 GMT
"Physicists came up with ways to measure a particle without interacting with it"

But there is no evidence whatsoever that their measurements always yielded the correct result, or that the particles they measured were in fact "identical", in the sense required by Bell's theorem. It has been demonstrated that exploiting these rarely discussed "loopholes", enables the seemingly weird results, to be duplicated, without any of the absurdities being invoked to "explain" those results.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 13, 2019 @ 01:58 GMT
Robert, I've had a thought about the experiment where entangled photons are tested with a choice of 3 orientations of polarizing filter, by the two observers independently; vertical, 120 degrees and 240 degrees orientation. Results being 1/4 same rather than expectation of 1/3 the same. Another possibility (other than non identical particles) is the alignment of the polarizes are not absolutely identical. Passing through the polarizer or not is generally thought of in a 'black and white' way, a binary yes or no. However the 'light' reaching a singular polarizer is not polarized, it has many directions, and singular photons can be thought of as having random direction. So maybe some only just manage to get by or are only just stopped. They are 'borderline' cases. So the slightest misalignment will cause mismatch of the observer's results. Has this been considered?

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 13, 2019 @ 04:11 GMT
In experiments where particles are passed through two polarizers or Stern Gerlach apparatuses and the results do not add up as expected, it must be that the measuring devices are not simply blocking one outcome and allowing the other but are changing the particles' path (unless already adjusted). If the same orientation is reused there is no change. As the orientation of those particles has already taken place at the first encounter with the apparatus. But if a different orientation of the Stern Gerlach apparatus or a different polarizer is used the particles will be affected again, responding to the new 'challenge'.The end result depends on what has been done to the particles and not just the polarizers used or Stern Geerlach apparatus orientations. Explaining why 2 polarizers at 90 degrees block all the light but 3 at 0, 45 and 90 degrees do not; etc.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 14, 2019 @ 14:49 GMT
Georgina:

You stated that "Another possibility (other than non identical particles) is the alignment of the polarizes are not absolutely identical."

In communications engineering, it has been known for decades, that in order to obtain the correct result, the polarization measuring device must be perfectly aligned with the polarized object to be measured, whenever that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 21:06 GMT
Some counter factual definiteness is genuine. A single observation gives a singular fixed, limited outcome. Prior to observation there is the potential for opposite outcomes be found. The observation product formed depends on the relation of the observer (or measuring apparatus) to the object. Neither outcome product exists until formed by the observation. Examples, clockwise and anticlockwise spin of a globe, left facing and right facing of a human profile drawn on pane of glass, head and tail of a coin exposed on a glass table.In these cases it can be known that though one particular outcome was found the opposite state of the object is also true, though that singular fixed limited state was not observed. It does not follow that for all states the counterfactual is true. Many states are mutually exclusive such as alive/dead, on/off, decayed/un-decayed atom.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 10, 2019 @ 23:18 GMT
George Musser,

Isn’t it time that physics faced up to a very big, but very basic, problem? A very basic error of judgement. The problem is that symbolic representations of information are not the same as information.

You say “A simulated mind is a mind in its own right” lol

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger George Musser replied on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 20:47 GMT
The article does not make a definitive statement about the nature of mind, but explores the implications of one philosophical position. As it states: "Whether a simulated brain is conscious is a contentious question, but suppose it is."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 23:05 GMT
A “contentious question” exists only in the minds of those who have failed to properly analyse what simulations are, and what computers/ robots/ “AIs” are.

A good start would be to get the fundamentals right: what does a string of symbols (e.g. 10011101011) mean from the point of view of an “AI”?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sydney Ernest Grimm wrote on Sep. 11, 2019 @ 09:52 GMT
It is a really interesting article! Unfortunately it spans a number of subjects so it is really difficult to comment the article in a few words.

The first problem is about "spooky action at a distance": information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality.

The argumentation is wrong. Information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light - actually instantaneous - if the information don't transfer energy. For example, true vectors that are mediated by the flat Higgs field (vacuum space) don't transfer energy. The vectors influence the local electromagnetic field "far away" and it is the reconfiguration of this local electromagnetic field that shows "the message". This reconfiguration is done with the available energy of the local electromagnetic field.

I mention this because it is part of the described experiments.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 11, 2019 @ 11:43 GMT
Hello Mr Musser,

This article is intriguing and congrats too for the generality and informations given in this post

Brown told:

"Suppose you program a computer to simulate a conscious mind. By putting this computer into an interferometer, you can predict what the mind will do without running the simulation. “Using counterfactual cognition, you can simulate what somebody’s...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Vognar wrote on Sep. 12, 2019 @ 03:17 GMT
Indeterminacy and uncertainty rear their ugly heads when the quantum wave function is entangled (or interfered with, and therefore multiply entangled) but with no container to map the topologies. My quantum computer is basically a Bell test in a quantum diamond as the container that can map the topologies. I'd also say that this has to do with the fact that the multiverse can be thought of as a perpetual motion machine. Because the lowest energy quantum particle has to be in motion, we have nothing but motion. Slowing or reversing the motion through the causal diamond is the job of the quantum computer, which acts as an effective light cone.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 12, 2019 @ 23:06 GMT
(Parts of this post have been edited out by Zeeya on 16 September for rudeness towards others.)

(Sentence cut by Zeeya for rudeness.)

But sadly, FQXi physicists and bloggers actually can’t think clearly about important issues.

The root cause of the problem is FQXi physicists and bloggers absurd belief that that symbolic representations of information (e.g. 001110110101) are identical to information. This improperly thought out idea leads to further absurdities:

Take the following examples of (section cut by Zeeya for being rude towards fellow posters) inability to think clearly:

“A simulated mind is a mind in its own right.” Blogger George Musser wrote on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 19:30 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3345 .

“Free will requires the capacity to learn. If something like a computer or robot has the capacity to learn, then perhaps it could demonstrate some level of free will.” Blogger Ian Durham replied on Aug. 25, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3319 .

“This is a Koan written after the publication of Cosmological Koans, addressing and concerning the hypothesis that simulations of minds have the same moral value as the original physical and biological minds.” FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 18:14 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3344 .

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 13:33 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

This post in its original form was flagged for review because it was abusive. I have reinstated it, but I have removed the portions that had no real substance or purpose other than to insult fellow bloggers and posters. Please avoid personal attacks on fellow members of the FQXi community (or indeed anyone), on this site.

I have also deleted a repeated version of this post that appeared on this thread. My apologies to Georgina and Steve, whose responses to that post have been cut along with it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 13:59 GMT
Hi Zeeya,

Don't worry,I am understanding. You moderate very well and with respect and with a just comportment. Long life to Fqxi :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 23:12 GMT
Thanks Zeeya, for keeping things nice.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 13, 2019 @ 23:12 GMT
George Musser,

00010100011110110101010101101010000101010101111110101
110101101111100000111

010101010101011011101010101010101010110
11010100001011010111101010000101001

0100110110101101011010101
0101011101010101010101010100101001010001010101010

10101111001
010101010110111111111111000000000010101010101010101100101010
101.

(If you are not intelligent [1] enough to be able to decipher the above, then I suggest you ask your nearest AI or computer to translate it for you).

1. In his book “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, Max Tegmark defines intelligence as the “ability to accomplish complex goals”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 14, 2019 @ 00:30 GMT
Collins Lab: Binary & Hex on YouTube

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 15, 2019 @ 00:51 GMT
Georgina,

Can you express in words what you are trying to say? Or do you think that the above link is self-explanatory?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 15, 2019 @ 01:15 GMT
I might add that you, in your extreme naivety, seem to think that 0000101101010 (or any representation at all) is self-explanatory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 16, 2019 @ 22:25 GMT
Georgina,

Re 0000101101010:

As I feared, you have no idea of the fundamentals, and no idea of what I am talking about:

Our symbols, i.e. squiggly things that human beings have created, have no intrinsic meaning: any meanings they have are meanings that human beings have imposed on them. Symbols are symbolic representations of a meaning that at least some human beings know about, or knew about in the past.

So 0000101101010 might mean something to some human beings, but it means nothing from the point of view of a computer/ “AI”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 17, 2019 @ 21:36 GMT
Hi Robert,

Non identical particles and one bit results can not explain the 3 polarizer problem. Two polarizers at 90 degrees block all light. With one at 45 degrees in between, some light comes through the last polarizer. so the population characteristics meeting the last polarizer are different depending on whether they have gone through the 45 degrees polarizer or not. We know from that the polarizers are not just blocking the passage of some of the photons. Something I haven't seen mentioned is refraction. Could refraction of the light as it passes from air to plastic back to air again be responsible? That refraction is happening isn't in doubt.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 17, 2019 @ 21:44 GMT
My other guess at what is happening is reflection at the boundaries of clear and opaque parts of the polarizer changing the path of the photons coming through in that way. That might be happening as well as refraction. Since such alterations of the path of the light is a characteristic of polarizers in general, it will affect all experiments where polarizers are used, including Bell tests.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 17, 2019 @ 22:19 GMT
The refractive index of all polarizers is different to that of air. So it follows that refraction is happening.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 18, 2019 @ 05:23 GMT
Bell's inequalities apply to preexisting characteristics, Such as, people who are wearing a hat, people who are wearing a scarf and people who are wearing gloves. They don't apply to scenarios where the measurement is altering the characteristic. Modelling the polarisers as if they are only gates allowing some 'light' through but not other 'light', but otherwise having no effect is making it seem as if the results belong to the hat, scarf, gloves kind of scenario (predetermined by hidden variables of the light); which is not so. That is why it seems strange that Bell's inequalities is violated, when it isn't strange at all. The light is not in a superposition of the different outcomes-the outcomes only coming to be as they are generated within the experiment. This is not a hidden variables solution but one requiring a different kind of Realism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 17, 2019 @ 23:19 GMT
A computer is a special setup that processes symbols, including symbolised algorithmic procedures, where every symbol is a string of 0s and 1s.

The 0s and 1s are physically represented (i.e. re-symbolised) by an electrical voltage: i.e. there are multiple levels of symbolisation going on.

But there is nothing spooky or higher-level going on inside a computer: there is nothing but the operation of the laws of nature going on inside a computer/ robot/ “AI”.

The following people, who don’t understand computers/ robots/ “AIs”, and who mislead the general public about the nature of computers/ robots/ “AIs”, should be censured and condemned in the strongest terms:

“A simulated mind is a mind in its own right.” Blogger George Musser wrote on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 19:30 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3345 .

“Free will requires the capacity to learn. If something like a computer or robot has the capacity to learn, then perhaps it could demonstrate some level of free will.” Blogger Ian Durham replied on Aug. 25, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3319 .

“This is a Koan written after the publication of Cosmological Koans, addressing and concerning the hypothesis that simulations of minds have the same moral value as the original physical and biological minds.” FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 18:14 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3344 .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 18, 2019 @ 21:13 GMT
Superficially, the earth looks flat; superficially the moon looks pockmarked like Swiss cheese; and superficially a robot/ AI might look intelligent and/or conscious. But it doesn’t take much investigation to show that the earth is not flat; the moon is not made of Swiss cheese; and a robot/ AI can never be intelligent or conscious.

Physicists and others have not performed due diligence on this issue. As a result, physicists and others are giving credence to fake views about the nature of computers/ robots/ “AIs”. This is a problem because, right now, the world does not need more fake views.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.