Signal nonlocality is necessary for consciousness.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:55 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <
Yakir’s formalism is to bring out certain aspects of quantum theory, the two vector formalism is entirely equivalent to one vector regular QM (Yakir himself said at the last workshop in honor of his 80th birthday).
Yes, and that may be his greatest blunder because of the 800 lb Gorilla in the room here:
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2
Orthodox quantum theory is to post-quantum theory as special relativity is to general relativity with signal nonlocality in the former analogous to curvature in the latter.
We still don’t have a full picture of the arrow of time, that was also the consensus at the same workshop (although some progress has been made). As for the “many worlds interpretation or the many words interpretation” (these are Max’s words), I would say that I vote for the second, too much metaphysical baggage (in John Archibald Wheeler’s) associated with the former. A Henry Stapp, I follow the orthodox quantum theory put forward by von Neumann.
I would ad, that until we take seriously the view that the entire universe is based on consciousness, we will always be coming up with infinite loops of interpretations, leading nowhere.
Menas
From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:
To:
Subject: Re: followup......... David Albert
Yakir Aharonov answers your question.
Why this particular world and not another?
On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:55 PM,
I remain a card carrying Many Worlds advocate ... Deutsch and Tegmark's well -reasoned arguments are largely responsible for this. But our alleged anomalies do beg for an explanation, and many worlds only offers many time machines ... so I would agree that many worlds cannot be the final word ... Why this particular world and not another?
However, that said Occam has another problem for his razor. Level one cosmology produces the same set of worlds as quantum level three many worlds.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid
-----Original message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI <
To: Dan Smith <
No doubt. Look I don't have time to read everything. Do some work and explain it to me as you understand it. Same for Bekkum who sends me links to stuff I don't have time to read. Bekkum should summarize why it's important - what the key ideas are in his opinion.
It's not possible to wade through all the papers that may be of interest on line.
Bohm's pilot-wave becomes the prophet-wave of the Yakir/Feynman quantum metanarrative, or sum over histories.
good remark by Dan
On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Dan Smith <
Jack,
It appears that you are missing out on the radical nature of David Albert's critique of QFT.
If his narratability critique carries any weight, then any form of quantum realism will have to be Geocentric. No?
On Aug 31, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti <
Good
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Dan Smith <
Jack,
Here is an excerpt from today's blog........
http://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t6p210-hello-cy-hello-omf-ii#443
>>>>>>
I've always assumed, and have often stated, that our historical trajectory, from Alpha to Omega, could be likened unto a Feynman path integral. This must, of necessity, be an essential feature of any attempt to revive the Leibnizian notion of the BPW.
Was it not Leibniz who first gave the notion of possible worlds a philosophical footing? Is it not Mad-Max Tegmark, who has recently, and with no small notoriety, pushed this notion to its logical absurdity, bless his heart!
Has there not been a pushback? Hardly, at all, for the simple and excruciating reason that Mad Max has the entire metaphysics of modernity by the gonads, not to put too fine a point on it.
There is precious little wiggle room, here, on the summit of Mount Probable......!
This is what Jack and I need to focus on....... that the the slopes of Mount Improbable are very slippery, indeed. If we have learned anything, in the past century of physics, it is that there are no toe holds on those slopes. The only rational way out is to invert our present picture of Mount Probable........
Instead of Mount Probable, we must now face the prospect of a Mount Improbable. It is to the summit of this peak, this Omega, that the the ancient wisdom did point. Albert Einstein was the last scientist/philosopher to humbly suggest that, per impossible, God might not be playing dice with the Universe.
The cosmologists who still cling to this view are currently assigned to the lunatic fringe. Leibniz, Bohm and Yakir afford us the only way out.
On this view, Bohm's pilot-wave becomes the prophet-wave of the Yakir/Feynman quantum metanarrative, or sum over histories. Hey, is that a mouth full, or what? Can we not run with this? Someone's gonna!
<<<<<<<<