4 ms·

Just going to repeat from the HN thread a few days ago[0] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 Here's Scott A

by ikeboy 8y ago

Just going to repeat from the HN thread a few days ago[0] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 Here's Scott Aaronson arguing that the theoretical work underpinning this experiment is flawed. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369655

ricksharp 8y ago
I think this needs many up-votes. It reminds me how sometimes converse is confused with contrapostive.
hyperion2010 8y ago
Ah, I knew this rang a bell. Reflecting on this a second time, I wonder whether it is possible to interpret this as the universe not caring until the information interacting actually matters. For example, if someone tells me that they have measured a value, they could very well be lying, and until I say "prove it, what value did you measure?" the underlying implementation of the universe is in a superposition where they both did and didn't measure the value (where the friend is telling the truth vs lying).
- ikeboy 8y ago
  The theoretical possibility of someone lying to you isn't quantum-based and doesn't work as a superposition. If they generated a random bit and lied depending on that value, then it would be.
  - erydo 8y ago
    I am even more of a layman than most here, but — why is it different? Isn't that basically Schrödinger's cat?
PavlikPaja 8y ago
It just doesn't bring anything new. It was obvious it has to work this way, since non-elementar particles can be in superpostion. If we assume that the time is still going for systems that appear to be in superposition for the outside observer, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation other than superposition being relative - the observers in the system still experience time as usual, and the superpostion only exists for the outside observer.
Cybiote 8y ago
I don't think that blog post is referring to the same paper. This new paper is about an experimental demonstration of Wigner's Friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend. Scott's blog post is talking about a more controversial extension to it, which combines Wigner's Friends with Hardy's Paradox to attempt to construct a reflective or meta limitation on the applicability of QM. The wiki link also discusses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend#An_extension_of_the_Wigner's_friend_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend#An_extension_o...
- ikeboy 8y ago
  This paper cites the one Scott argues against.
  - tsufe 8y ago
    Yes it does and yet you are still wrong AFAIK. Citing a paper does not necessarily mean that said paper would form the theoretical basis of the citing paper. This paper about the experiment is trivially true, there were no surprises regarding to what QM predicts. Here is a direct quote from Scott: >My comments about the Frauchiger-Renner paper never doubted for a second the result predicted by QM. So an “experimental demonstration” of their setup—by which one really means an experimental demonstration of Hardy’s experiment, since the Frauchiger-Renner one would require superposed conscious observers (!)—has zero effect on any of those comments. And here is a prescient direct quote from Craig Gidney: >I wonder how long it will be until someone 1) executes the circuit from Hardy’s paradox (which has very few qubits and very few gates, so you could run it on a NISQ machine), 2) confirms that of course the results match the predictions of quantum mechanics, 3) frames the result in terms of Frauchiger et al’s variant, and 4) journalists telephone-game it into something like “quantum researchers prove decisions aren’t real”. Please see also the relevant discussion in comments here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4147 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4147
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      The experiment is uninteresting, as far as I can tell, without the interpretation from Frauchiger-Renner. My point in linking the original article was that the media discussion of this (in part driven by the paper's own framing) as disproving objective reality is wrong, something Scott clearly agrees with.

by ikeboy 8y ago

ricksharp 8y ago

I think this needs many up-votes. It reminds me how sometimes converse is confused with contrapostive.

hyperion2010 8y ago

Ah, I knew this rang a bell. Reflecting on this a second time, I wonder whether it is possible to interpret this as the universe not caring until the information interacting actually matters. For example, if someone tells me that they have measured a value, they could very well be lying, and until I say "prove it, what value did you measure?" the underlying implementation of the universe is in a superposition where they both did and didn't measure the value (where the friend is telling the truth vs lying).

ikeboy 8y ago
The theoretical possibility of someone lying to you isn't quantum-based and doesn't work as a superposition. If they generated a random bit and lied depending on that value, then it would be.
- erydo 8y ago
  I am even more of a layman than most here, but — why is it different? Isn't that basically Schrödinger's cat?

PavlikPaja 8y ago

It just doesn't bring anything new. It was obvious it has to work this way, since non-elementar particles can be in superpostion. If we assume that the time is still going for systems that appear to be in superposition for the outside observer, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation other than superposition being relative - the observers in the system still experience time as usual, and the superpostion only exists for the outside observer.

Cybiote 8y ago

I don't think that blog post is referring to the same paper. This new paper is about an experimental demonstration of Wigner's Friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend. Scott's blog post is talking about a more controversial extension to it, which combines Wigner's Friends with Hardy's Paradox to attempt to construct a reflective or meta limitation on the applicability of QM. The wiki link also discusses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend#An_extension_of_the_Wigner's_friend_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend#An_extension_o...

ikeboy 8y ago
This paper cites the one Scott argues against.
- tsufe 8y ago
  Yes it does and yet you are still wrong AFAIK. Citing a paper does not necessarily mean that said paper would form the theoretical basis of the citing paper. This paper about the experiment is trivially true, there were no surprises regarding to what QM predicts. Here is a direct quote from Scott: >My comments about the Frauchiger-Renner paper never doubted for a second the result predicted by QM. So an “experimental demonstration” of their setup—by which one really means an experimental demonstration of Hardy’s experiment, since the Frauchiger-Renner one would require superposed conscious observers (!)—has zero effect on any of those comments. And here is a prescient direct quote from Craig Gidney: >I wonder how long it will be until someone 1) executes the circuit from Hardy’s paradox (which has very few qubits and very few gates, so you could run it on a NISQ machine), 2) confirms that of course the results match the predictions of quantum mechanics, 3) frames the result in terms of Frauchiger et al’s variant, and 4) journalists telephone-game it into something like “quantum researchers prove decisions aren’t real”. Please see also the relevant discussion in comments here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4147 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4147
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    The experiment is uninteresting, as far as I can tell, without the interpretation from Frauchiger-Renner. My point in linking the original article was that the media discussion of this (in part driven by the paper's own framing) as disproving objective reality is wrong, something Scott clearly agrees with.