5 ms·

Well, we just discovered a sync error, so that might be a good edge case to start on: https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foun

by kromem 2y ago

Well, we just discovered a sync error, so that might be a good edge case to start on: https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-poin...

wizzwizz4 2y ago
That's not a sync error: it's just a demonstration that all collapse theories are inconsistent with some other assumptions we like to make. (There are many alternatives, the most famous of which is probably Hugh Everett III's relative state model, though none of them are completely elegant.) It hasn't just been discovered: it's been known since the 60s, and developed on-and-off since. Of course, we haven't really tested this because we haven't attempted to put humans “in a superposition”. Physicalists assume that photons are adequate substitutes for humans, in the thought experiment, but something's wrong with our intuitions, so imo we should adopt some philosophical rigour about this whole thing.
- kromem 2y ago
  Generally 'discovery' relates to experimental results and not theory. For example, it seems like it would be more appropriate to say that the quantized nature of light was discovered in the early 20th century when confirmed by experiment and not that it was discovered in antiquity when Epicurus or Lucretius were talking about how light was made up of the smallest possible parts moving very quickly. Also, given the parameters of the experiment in question, it arguably would be better described as "multi-layered Bell" than "Wigner's friend." Everett's also fares well for the Frauchiger-Renner paradox too.
DarmokJalad1701 2y ago
@skdh has some takes on this: https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0?t=432 https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0?t=432 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo
- kromem 2y ago
  Superderminism seems the odd choice to embrace here. Also, given the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, the Occam's razor for fewest assumptions between the two would be contradictory outcomes being what needs to be embraced. Superderminism doesn't resolve Frauchiger-Renner. Additionally, it seems really odd to me that it's at the exact point where a continuous system would be impossible to simulate (interactions with a presumably free agent) which is where things collapse to finite quantities, and yet as soon as the persistent information about such an interaction is erased it goes back to behaving continuously. While superderminism could address the paradoxes, if superderminism existed the very behavior and quirkiness occurring seems superfluous viewed as a system design.

by kromem 2y ago

wizzwizz4 2y ago

That's not a sync error: it's just a demonstration that all collapse theories are inconsistent with some other assumptions we like to make. (There are many alternatives, the most famous of which is probably Hugh Everett III's relative state model, though none of them are completely elegant.) It hasn't just been discovered: it's been known since the 60s, and developed on-and-off since. Of course, we haven't really tested this because we haven't attempted to put humans “in a superposition”. Physicalists assume that photons are adequate substitutes for humans, in the thought experiment, but something's wrong with our intuitions, so imo we should adopt some philosophical rigour about this whole thing.

kromem 2y ago
Generally 'discovery' relates to experimental results and not theory. For example, it seems like it would be more appropriate to say that the quantized nature of light was discovered in the early 20th century when confirmed by experiment and not that it was discovered in antiquity when Epicurus or Lucretius were talking about how light was made up of the smallest possible parts moving very quickly. Also, given the parameters of the experiment in question, it arguably would be better described as "multi-layered Bell" than "Wigner's friend." Everett's also fares well for the Frauchiger-Renner paradox too.

DarmokJalad1701 2y ago

@skdh has some takes on this: https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0?t=432 https://youtu.be/GerzZ6GDe-0?t=432 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo

kromem 2y ago
Superderminism seems the odd choice to embrace here. Also, given the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, the Occam's razor for fewest assumptions between the two would be contradictory outcomes being what needs to be embraced. Superderminism doesn't resolve Frauchiger-Renner. Additionally, it seems really odd to me that it's at the exact point where a continuous system would be impossible to simulate (interactions with a presumably free agent) which is where things collapse to finite quantities, and yet as soon as the persistent information about such an interaction is erased it goes back to behaving continuously. While superderminism could address the paradoxes, if superderminism existed the very behavior and quirkiness occurring seems superfluous viewed as a system design.