Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2590

Re: The halting problem revisited

Show all headers | View raw

On 30/03/2011 01:24, javax.swing.JSnarker wrote:
> On 29/03/2011 3:43 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that
>> consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement
>> process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend,
>> the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system
>> is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger
>> indeterminate system.
>
> Thing is, it requires not only positing a collapse mechanism that is
> non-unitary, non-Lorentz-invariant, non-time-reversible, and on and on
> and on, but also positing a dichotomy between things that constitute a
> "material device" and some other sort of stuff that does not (but you
> can bet the name for it would start with an "S" and rhyme with "hole",
> and be suggested as proof of the existence of some dude whose name
> rhymes with Todd).
>
> Or we can posit that Wigner's friend is also a "material device", in
> which case you realize that Wigner's friend just gets replicated into
> parallel worlds, and so does Wigner, and so does everyone eventually.
> Which is philosophically somewhat disturbing, and being a "material
> device" perhaps even more so.
>
> This is probably why the *obvious truth* about QM is regarded as
> controversial instead of a settled matter: it flies in the face of not
> only commonsense intuition (I don't *feel* like I'm being duplicated!)
> but also nearly all widespread spiritual and theological beliefs (anyone
> remember the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe"?) and
> even our intuition about free will.
>
> Yet, the experimental evidence says we must either accept this, or posit
> a non-unitary, non-Lorentz-invariant, non-time-reversible .......
>
>> However, a conscious observer (according to his reasoning) must be in
>> either one state or the other, hence conscious observations are
>> different, hence consciousness is not material.
>
> There's Wigner's non sequitur; if a conscious observer was in a
> superposition of states, and if consciousness was *part of the brain's
> function* rather than some mysterious external thing, then the observer
> would have two sets of experiences and in fact two consciousnesses, each
> experiencing only one of them.
>
> What happens if you superpose a computer adding 1 and 2 and a computer
> adding 3 and 4? Two additions take place, separately but simultaneously,
> producing a 3 and a 7, respectively. Neither operation influences the
> other.
>
> So, what happens if you superpose a computer running a self-aware
> program on one set of inputs and a computer running a self-aware program
> on a second set of inputs? Again, two separate self-aware computations
> take place, separately but simultaneously, and neither operation
> influences the other.
>
> The implication is that Wigner cannot tell by introspection that he
> *isn't* one of two (or many more) superposed Wigners, each having
> received separate inputs, none influencing the others, because of that
> last part.
>
>> The idea has become known as the consciousness causes collapse
>> interpretation.
>
> Which I'm quite sure will eventually join a list that also contains
> phlogiston, hollow Earth theory, and cold fusion.
>
> Oh, and what *does* happen to free will if you're just a "material device"?
>
> Why, nothing, of course. You only have problems there if you assume that
> "you" are floating out there somewhere, "willing" your brain and body to
> do something, and if that brain and body are deterministic all the
> "willing" in the universe won't influence them. But that presupposes the
> very dualism we're now presuming to be absent. So, instead, your will is
> something internal; it arises from the mechanical processes of your brain.
>
> You have the sense of being able to do anything you want to do, within
> physics's constraints. This comes from the brain's labeling certain
> states of the universe as reachable if certain actions are taken. All of
> that is algorithmic; chess software does similar things under the hood
> to see if it has a checkmate in N moves and then act to win the game if
> it does.
>
> So what is "will"? Ultimately it comes from whatever determines what you
> "want" to do, and what you then decide as a way of trying to bring it
> about. If what you "want" is a result of mechanical processes, and so
> are those subsequent decisions, what of it? You still want things; you
> can still figure out ways to try to get them and make the attempt. You
> don't magically lose these capabilities, anymore than a chess program
> suddenly loses the capability to win most games against human players,
> just because you discover that the whole process is mechanical!
> It was all along, and it never bothered you before you knew about it.
>

Of course, if you want REAL weirdness go for the Many Minds approach!

-- 
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-29 14:05 -0400
  Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 20:43 +0100
    Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-29 20:24 -0400
      Re: The halting problem revisited Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:05 +0200
        Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-30 04:41 -0400
          Re: The halting problem revisited Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 11:35 +0200
            Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 07:38 -0400
              Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:48 +0100
                Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 10:35 -0700
                Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 19:46 +0100
                Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 13:24 -0700
                Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 00:04 +0100
                Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-31 00:00 -0400
              Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:28 -0400
            Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:44 +0100
            Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:26 -0400
              Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-04-05 01:32 +0100
          Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:42 +0100
            Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-31 08:31 -0400
        Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:41 +0100
          Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:34 -0400
      Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:38 +0100

csiph-web