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

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 23:57pm UTC, wrote This also makes Wigner’s friend type problems not paradoxical. The...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 23:56pm UTC, wrote First a little reiteration because its best considered together. A wave...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 21:15pm UTC, wrote I like to ask if you will kindly take a look at the discussion of my paper...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 2:14am UTC, wrote I also meant to write- a new abstract entity-

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 2:07am UTC, wrote That should say Object permanence is relevant.

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 2:03am UTC, wrote I said not real as in not existing physically because it is partly...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/18/23 at 1:43am UTC, wrote "Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/17/23 at 1:47am UTC, wrote This relies on there being object permeance. that is objects that exist...



FQXi FORUM
February 7, 2023

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


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2022 @ 11:48 GMT
If the quantum computer, and therefore the AI, is linear (i.e. works according to standard quantum mechanics) superposition will never be broken and a "measurement" (non-unitary, non-linear) will never actually occur. This was detailed by von Neumann in the 1930s (unending "von Neumann chain" of ever greater, unending superpositions), and also by Schrodinger (this was the take-home-point of "Schrodinger's Cat")

See e.g. https://ijqf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/QS2021v3n2p2.pdf


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Oct. 5, 2022 @ 15:36 GMT
Having a dual intelligence. One moderately gifted, the other unprecedented in human history, I am completely aware that this matches the description of the dual identity of the Great Genius of Nostradamus prophecy foretold by the prophet Nostradamus.

When time allows I will read the above article in full. But I do see a lot of relevant points being made. For example, I have always said that a logically duplicated brain is sufficient to create an artificial intelligence and I am completely aware of the fact that the brain is a Quantum computer. Else how can I gain extrasensory perception and supreme intelligence using old maryjane? To put it plainly.

I have interacted with the universal wavefunction and demonic forces and the universal God that protects me from them from the comfort of my bedroom. So I am completely aware of the reality of the mind as well as the reality of the wavefunction. They are mutually dependent.

Anyhow, I'll cut to the chase and say the Reality seems to be Self-perceptive(ual) because it still operates even in the absence of an observer. It is a dual operation that is so dynamic that it merges opposites into one in order to resolve its duality. This explains the 2-stage processes in nature and mathematics such as 0's and 1's. In an infinitely possible universe, an electron takes an infinite path across the universe before journeying to the surface of the slit experiment and releasing waves. This was the explanation given by Richard Feynman who explained wave-particle duality.

-Nicholas Hosein.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Matej Pavsic wrote on Dec. 15, 2022 @ 11:34 GMT
These experiments of the Wigner's friend type are very important. The issues raised in the above post are very deep, but according to me, they need further clarifications*).

As a physicist I am looking at reality from the point of view of quantum theory. There are many interpretation of quantum mechanics and there is no consensus about which one is true. “Nobody understands quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Jan. 16, 2023 @ 17:48 GMT
A very good summary of where we're at today.

I've read a previous book by Robert Lanza, and although I have some criticisms of style and presentation I believe he is basically correct - consciousness is fundamental.

I don't like the term "biocentrism"; it's easily misinterpreted to imply that chemistry, rather than consciousness, is at the center. Just by asking the common question, "how does the brain give rise to consciousness?", we show that we've assumed our conclusion. Our consciousness is associated with brain activities; but I think causality flows in the other direction.

Logic alone leads us to the same place George Berkeley arrived at long ago: the words "matter" and "physical" add nothing to the description of reality. In fact, they have no non-circular definitions - literally, no meaning. What are quarks made of, other than observations - what is "quark stuff"?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nicholas Hosein wrote on Jan. 2, 2023 @ 15:37 GMT
Hello Matej,

According to the reality self-simulation principle by christopher michael langan, subatomic particles must "go somewhere" outside the simulation for processing. In one sense reality becomes an assumption and in another remains as matter. WIthout perception, matter remains as a distinct existence from object.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nicholas Hosein wrote on Jan. 2, 2023 @ 15:40 GMT
So truth is strictly subjective and on an individual basis? Delusions in the mind of someone is real if they believe in them or if they see them?

Perception is either a seeing or a belief/perspective/delusion/etc.

When the seeing becomes available, the psychology changes the perception of the mind, so reality is renewed including the object-level reality, where matter and perception combines on the object level while matter and God is more on the seeing level, which is most fundamental as this is where matter is distinct from object. Is this what M=R means? If so, how does the idea of universal intelligence (God) become the a priori or alpha omega?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 17, 2023 @ 01:19 GMT
It is helpful to recognize that an outcome or result is a new abstract entity being formed, that can be memorized or recorded. It is not the object, Consider a dice roll. The outcome could be 6. but 6 is just shown by one object is still 6 sided. there has been a choice only to consider the upper face.

Schrodinger's cat: existing cat interacts with its existing environment leading to condition of existing cat. Modelled as both outcomes that might be observed although the existing cat can not be both observation products i.e. a seen live cat and seen dead cat. Because either observation product is only formed at observation. The wave function is not a premeasurement cat but an amalgamation of future possibilities oof what might be observed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2023 @ 01:42 GMT
There is still an existing animal when a singular observation product is formed and the abstract entity, it's state is noted. Friend outside doesn't have their own observation product or noted state, so the wave function representing what might in the future be observed is still relevant. What might be observed but is not yet actually an observation is different from the actual existing cat , alive or dead

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2023 @ 01:47 GMT
This relies on there being object permeance. that is objects that exist existing even if not seen or measured.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2023 @ 01:43 GMT
"Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs."

There is no existing state prior to measurement. There is no relation with the measurement apparatus that can give a singular 'measured this way' outcome. This had been widely i interpreted as meaning it is not something actual, rather than lacks a relative to specific observer viewpoint or measurement process. In place of what there is, until we have a singular description, is consideration of the liklihood of finding different outcomes when measurement takes place . These outcomes do not yet exist as they can only be formed when the measured object and measuring apparatus relation happens.so pre measurement there is contemplation of one future outcome that will be actualized and other outcomes that are just imaginary; unless using the Many worlds theory. This is therefore not something real.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 18, 2023 @ 21:15 GMT
I like to ask if you will kindly take a look at the discussion of my paper now called "Metaphysics Alteration and Exploring the Relationships Between Existing, Probability and Measurement Outcomes; Consequence for Ideas About Entanglement and Restoring Causality"over on viXra. https://vixra.org/abs/2301.0068

Link to abstract and discussion Link works, i tried it.

The response to my writing it has not been positive but it has given me the opportunity to defend my reasoning and address their specific theory and experimental results based objections. I think I will post my thoughts about the measurement problem I posted on this site over in the discussion there to see if there is any response

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 18, 2023 @ 23:56 GMT
First a little reiteration because its best considered together.

A wave function is not physically real being a pre-measurement superposition of ;what will be the outcome after the measuring process has happened and imagined outcomes that will not come to be. It does not collapse causing the definite state object to come into being. It is replaced with a new abstract entity, which is a score like outcome. The outcome ‘score’ can be recorded in different ways, be held in mind (thought) or memorized. The object after measurement is a different entity from the abstract score like outcome. When the replacement is done the wave function is no longer relevant. What might be is replaced by what is known to be. What is before the knowledge is acquired and part of mental awareness or stored for future access is another matter. There will be temporal delay between the physical ‘measurement’ interaction happening and registering of a detection. Thinking of Schrödinger’s cat, the cat and poison interaction can have happened some time before opening the box but until the box is opened what might be found (to be found and imagined will not be found) is still relevant. Keeping in mind the wave function is not the animal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2023 @ 23:57 GMT
This also makes Wigner’s friend type problems not paradoxical. The knowledge of friend, who is told the outcome by the observer, and direct observer of the cat can be different without logical contradiction. Its about whether or not the abstract outcome score has been acquired (individual replacement of wavefunction i.e. what might be found) not the condition of the animal in the meantime. That different observers replace the wave function at different times, when they have access to the information, is no more strange than relativity

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.