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 author 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

Steve Dufourny: on 10/1/22 at 10:20am UTC, wrote There is no proof that the universe can be explained like this like an...

jim hughes: on 9/27/22 at 22:44pm UTC, wrote The above post is mine, somehow tagged as "Anonymous". Jim Hughes

Anonymous: on 9/27/22 at 22:19pm UTC, wrote "By testing a series of ever more sophisticated A.I. we could perhaps...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/27/22 at 16:38pm UTC, wrote Professor Hameroff, the universe generally shows us some roads towards...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/26/22 at 11:27am UTC, wrote The waves function collapsing tell us that quantum states superposed can be...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/22 at 19:11pm UTC, wrote All this to tell that even if we have evolved in sciences, physics, maths,...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/22 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Hello Professor Hameroff, all what you tell is relevant about your model to...

Stuart Hameroff: on 9/25/22 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote This is interesting, but for true understanding there needs to be an actual...



FQXi FORUM
October 2, 2022

ARTICLE: Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Roger Granet wrote on Sep. 21, 2022 @ 00:32 GMT
I just have a question. If you have a pair of entangled particles, A1 and A2, and you observe A2, it instantaneously affects A1's properties. But does it also affect other particles in the spatial vicinity of A1? That is, is the observer's effect specific only for the particle entangled with it?

Thanks!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author George Musser wrote on Sep. 21, 2022 @ 01:49 GMT
(1) I wouldn’t say that observing A2 instantly affects A1. That is one interpretation of what happens, but you never directly see any such effect. What you do observe is that measurements of A1 and of A2 produce correlated outcomes that aren’t explicable by any known physical mechanism.

(2) The effect is specific to the entangled pair A1 and A2. Other nearby particles are correlated only if they, too, are part of the entangled state. This is important: nothing about the spatial position of A1 and A2 makes any difference.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet replied on Sep. 21, 2022 @ 02:36 GMT
Dr. Musser,

Thanks! That helps me understand it better to know it's specific to the entangled pair only and that the effect isn't related to spatial proximity.

Roger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 21, 2022 @ 17:45 GMT
The statement "correlated outcomes that aren’t explicable by any known physical mechanism", has been demonstrated to be false. The correlations are exactly the same as those produced by "non-identicality" rather than "non-locality".

For further insights into the actual nature of the problem, see the last two paragraphs in my May. 19, 2021 @ 12:56 GMT reply to Eugen Muchowski, under this FQXi thread

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stuart Hameroff wrote on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 17:55 GMT
This is interesting, but for true understanding there needs to be an actual accounting for the nature of 1) quantum superposition (e.g. particles in multiple locations or states simultaneously), 2) reduction of superpositions to classical states (‘collapse of the wavefunction’), and 3) conscious observation.

Ironically, solutions to all 3 are found in the ‘objective reduction’...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 18:49 GMT
Hello Professor Hameroff, all what you tell is relevant about your model to penrose and you but if the general relativity alone without considering the massless scalar fields of this DE and the massive scalar fields of the DM to complete the standard model and to better understand the mass , the informations, the energy and the fields and the philosophical origin of the universe,so it lacks deeper parameters. The brian is a result of evolution with the neurons, the microtubules and made of particles and fields, but the problem is the deeper parameters that we cannot actually reach and explain. If you consider for example that the photons are the primary essence and that this GR is the cause of our standard model and quantum mechanic, this is an assumption also. If we go farer philosophically, imagine that we have souls and that the bodies and minds permit to activate a process , so there is a difference between the mechanisms . The collapses of the waves function is philosophical problem for the consciousness.

The protoconsciousness for example we cannot affirm that this SR and GR are the cause and even philosophically we cannot affirm that the fields are the road for this consciousness, maybe the particles of this DE can be the cause also and that these photons are just encoded in this space vacuum of this DE . The limitations that we have philosophically and physically are the problem at my humble opinion. God or mathematical accident, fields or particles, GR or DE for the main informations added , all this is not known ......soul or no soul , we don t know simply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 19:11 GMT
All this to tell that even if we have evolved in sciences, physics, maths, computing, we have limitations philosophical and physical, even a particls we don t know really what they are , I consider 3D spheres in a fluidity, others strings or points and after with the geomtrical algebras we try to explain these fields of our quantum mechanics, many consider the GR and strings or points in 1D at...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 26, 2022 @ 11:27 GMT
The waves function collapsing tell us that quantum states superposed can be reduced to an unitary one considering the interaction with the world that we observe. Like for the schrodinger equation where we measure, observe the qiuantities of motions and the position. We know also that we have like extrapolations the MWI. But the decoherences and the fact to consider deeper parameters to add imply...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 27, 2022 @ 22:19 GMT
"By testing a series of ever more sophisticated A.I. we could perhaps discover the threshold at which a quantum system qualifies as an observer."

A forlorn hope IMHO.

This strikes me as no different than looking up and down the evolutionary tree for a point at which "consciousness appears".

An intelligent system? Passing the Turing Test seems to currently require nothing more than using language parsing, fast Google lookups and a library of jokes to keep a human interrogator confused for a few minutes.

We have no real idea what human intelligence "is" much less any inkling of how to implement it in software. At minimum, the processing seems to be massively parallel on a scale we can't even grasp.

I'm disappointed to see physicists buying into today's AI hype. They're waiting for a human-level AI to resolve some questions? Might as well try to recruit Maxwell's demon, or wait for a "divine visitor". None of these entities are likely to exist anytime soon.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Sep. 27, 2022 @ 22:44 GMT
The above post is mine, somehow tagged as "Anonymous".

Jim Hughes

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.