On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 8:45 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've not seen that assertion made about QM before. Cite? > That's my interpretation of Everett's interpretation. I think the Copenhagen interpretation, that a wave collapses into a particle the instant it is observed, is wrong. Schrodinger showed that this assumption leads to nonsensical conclusions, using a thought experiment with a cat. Schrodinger's wave equation is a second order differential equation. Thus it has an exact solution, given the initial conditions. According to Everett (I believe), if the system includes an observer, then the solution is that the observer observes particles (that don't exist). Unfortunately we can't apply Everett's interpretation for two reasons. First, solving the equations even approximately on a non quantum computer takes exponential time in the number of qubits. This is why we can't model chemistry for anything more complex than a single hydrogen atom. Second, we don't know the initial state because that would mean the observer has more information than the system that contains it. Thus, my assertion on the definition of probability. > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 6:19 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 4:49 PM Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you flipped a coin and it came up heads then the probability that it >>> came up heads is 1. >>> Was that a trick question? >>> >> >> If you knew the quantum state of the universe, then all future events >> would be predetermined with probability 1. >> >> Probability is how we quantify guesses. It is a property of agents making >> predictions with imperfect knowledge. >> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tefd74cfe5df991e0-Md194bcb71c05737b40fc4619 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
