On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 6:44:31 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > I stumbled across a related topic regarding Wigner's friend/Schrodinger's > Cat via the observer in QM, in that a traditional cat, not a metaphor would > count from physical principle's as an observer itself. This is going way > down the observer chain, say, from a Boltzmann Brain of hyper intelligence > to a cat. Would a computer system be an observer or a bacteria? Ummmm....? > Hey, a BB is indeed a brain sim. > > I do not think a quantum observer needs to be any conscious entity at all. All that is required for a system to act as a quantum observer is for the it to couple to a pure quantum state so the quantum phase of that pure state is completely transferred to the large N number of mixed quantum states composing this system. This serves as the collapse. Further this quantum system with frequency ν will enter this state of affairs on a time scale T << 1/ν and so the system never executes its quantum oscillations.
There is no need for a mentally conscious being. A biological system, whether a purring cat or a person is a finite non-zero temperature entity filled with quantum noise due to its thermal properties. As such the Schrödinger cat is not possible. There is no way a cat can be in a superposition of states, or at least not the entire thing. LC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] <javascript:>> > To: Everything List <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Sent: Sat, Jun 27, 2020 7:32 pm > Subject: Re: Importance of including environment in brain simulation > > This video is set towards the end so I have not seen the whole > presentation. At the end he gets into the Wigner's friend problem in QM, > and there is the result of Fraschiger and Renner on this that illustrates > limits on the idea of objective observership. > > A brain to function needs an environment. It must be an open system A > brain or conscious entity that is a closed system is almost a > contradiction. Self-awareness is all within the perspective of a relative > basis with an external world. > > LC > > On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Brent, > > It looks like you were right about the importance of including > environmental data in a brain simulation. Markus Muller uses algorithmic > information theory to argue that whether or not a simulated brain is a > zombie or not, depends on a large extent to the degree in which > environmental information is incorporated into the simulation: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch? time_continue=1699&v= wsbNT3XEdsA&t=51m40s > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1699&v=wsbNT3XEdsA&t=51m40s> > (See 51 minutes 40 seconds in) > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09762469-698a-4074-b7b0-c016f8155773o%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09762469-698a-4074-b7b0-c016f8155773o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4cdd595-12ca-43a8-b290-0f409424b825o%40googlegroups.com.
