3 ms·

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/

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.

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.