4 ms·

Couldn't one argue, that in some situations coordination via previously agreed upon criteria is worth more than which one of two decisions is made? If A and B

Couldn't one argue, that in some situations coordination via previously agreed upon criteria is worth more than which one of two decisions is made? If A and B agree upon, that B will know what A is doing in either case of discovery, then B needs only to look at their observation and will know what A's observation is (the opposite). Then B can know how A will act, because A decides what to do based on what they observe. Then B can act in a coordinated way. Even though it is only a roll of a die, it can still be helpful. For Sci-Fi example: Some alien spaceship fleet (bare with me!) wants to attack another civilization from 2 sides across wast distances. They split up waaay before that and each keeps an entangled particle. They agree upon which observation means what detail in the first fleet's attack plan. Depending on that, the second fleet will act differently on the other side. But the first fleet only decide which of the 2 strategies to use, when they are already split up, based on the observation of the entangled particle. The second fleet has to act accordingly, or the strategy will fail. Is this impossible? Or is this simply not seen as useful information in some specific definition?

ahelwer 6y ago
You can accomplish the same thing with a PRNG initialized to the same seed.
qbutt 6y ago
> Or is this simply not seen as useful information in some specific definition? You are adding another conditional but nested conditionals still all rely on the first. We are getting 1 bit of data:0|1; from this entrangled pair. Fleet1 has Strategy0 in case their measurement reads 0. Strategy0 requires Fleet2 to act using Strategy2 for the highest probability of success. Fleet1 also has Strategy1 in case their measurement reads 1. If Strategy1 also requires Fleet2 to act using Strategy2 for highest probability of success then Fleet1's measurement is useless as Fleet2 can just use Strategy2 in both events. If instead Strategy1 requires a new Strategy3, and even though you could communicate which of these strategies to choose faster than we know how to communicate that electromagnetically, our 1 bit of information is still useless because you would still have to prepare for both eventualities. Both pairs: Strategies02 and Strategies13; would equally have to have the same probability of success because if one is favoured over another then using this technique to decide your fleet movements could result in your allowing the possibility for the measurement to order you in a strategy you know is less likely to be successful. This is what I was trying to get at by using the word 'desirable'. Fleet2 may appear to be waiting on Fleet1 for orders, but in fact both fleets are waiting on their orders from the first measurement.

ahelwer 6y ago

You can accomplish the same thing with a PRNG initialized to the same seed.

qbutt 6y ago

> Or is this simply not seen as useful information in some specific definition? You are adding another conditional but nested conditionals still all rely on the first. We are getting 1 bit of data:0|1; from this entrangled pair. Fleet1 has Strategy0 in case their measurement reads 0. Strategy0 requires Fleet2 to act using Strategy2 for the highest probability of success. Fleet1 also has Strategy1 in case their measurement reads 1. If Strategy1 also requires Fleet2 to act using Strategy2 for highest probability of success then Fleet1's measurement is useless as Fleet2 can just use Strategy2 in both events. If instead Strategy1 requires a new Strategy3, and even though you could communicate which of these strategies to choose faster than we know how to communicate that electromagnetically, our 1 bit of information is still useless because you would still have to prepare for both eventualities. Both pairs: Strategies02 and Strategies13; would equally have to have the same probability of success because if one is favoured over another then using this technique to decide your fleet movements could result in your allowing the possibility for the measurement to order you in a strategy you know is less likely to be successful. This is what I was trying to get at by using the word 'desirable'. Fleet2 may appear to be waiting on Fleet1 for orders, but in fact both fleets are waiting on their orders from the first measurement.