Theories of Consciousness

[Noax]

They are the same thing. Nonlocal correlations.

Incorrect. Any correlation is a locally measured result. All measurements by definition are local.
If two spin measurements are taken on different planets, then it will take minutes/hours to measure the correlation locally, regardless of where 'locally' is.

Either you are smarter than all these professional physicists, many of whom hold to the principle of locality, or you simply cannot let go of the PoCD long enough to understand the validity of an interpretation that doesn't hold to it.
The professional physicists that assert PoCD may well believe physics to be nonlocal, but none of them has actually falsified any of the local interpretations. They'd not be listed as valid interpretations where this not the case. Your incredulity is noted, but is also fallacious.

Similarly, I am not asserting that physics is local. I'm saying that there's no evidence either way, and probably never will be.

[Atla]

They are the same thing. Nonlocal correlations.

Incorrect. Any correlation is a locally measured result. All measurements by definition are local.
If two spin measurements are taken on different planets, then it will take minutes/hours to measure the correlation locally, regardless of where 'locally' is.

Either you are smarter than all these professional physicists, many of whom hold to the principle of locality, or you simply cannot let go of the PoCD long enough to understand the validity of an interpretation that doesn't hold to it.
The professional physicists that assert PoCD may well believe physics to be nonlocal, but none of them has actually falsified any of the local interpretations. They'd not be listed as valid interpretations where this not the case. Your incredulity is noted, but is also fallacious.

Similarly, I am not asserting that physics is local. I'm saying that there's no evidence either way, and probably never will be.

Red herring, of course you take the measurement where you are, where else would you take it. What matters is that you will see the correlation eventually. The correlation shows that the world is nonlocal.

[Noax]

of course you take the measurement where you are, where else would you take it. What matters is that you will see the correlation eventually. The correlation shows that the world is nonlocal.

Agree to all but that last line, since the correlation isn't measured until, well, 'eventually', which doesn't violate locality.

[Atla]

of course you take the measurement where you are, where else would you take it. What matters is that you will see the correlation eventually. The correlation shows that the world is nonlocal.

Agree to all but that last line, since the correlation isn't measured until, well, 'eventually', which doesn't violate locality.

Red herring again, not your eventual measurement of the correlation violates locality, but what the correlation shows.

[Noax]

but what the correlation shows.

What do you think it shows?

[Atla]

but what the correlation shows.

What do you think it shows?

Correlation, which means the world is nonlocal (at least partially).

[Noax]

What do you think it shows?

Correlation, which means the world is nonlocal (at least partially).

I'm not asking what your conclusion is, I'm asking how you arrive at that conclusion.
Sure, correlation. I'm more interested in how nonlocality is concluded from a measurement where all data is from events in the past light cone of the measurement.

[Atla]

What do you think it shows?

Correlation, which means the world is nonlocal (at least partially).

I'm not asking what your conclusion is, I'm asking how you arrive at that conclusion.
Sure, correlation. I'm more interested in how nonlocality is concluded from a measurement where all data is from events in the past light cone of the measurement.

By noting that the correlation already seems to have existed at a point in the past when it would have required superluminal communication.

[Noax]

By noting that the correlation already seems to have existed at a point in the past when it would have required superluminal communication.

I do believe that is a counterfactual statement.

[Atla]

By noting that the correlation already seems to have existed at a point in the past when it would have required superluminal communication.

I do believe that is a counterfactual statement.

Okay fine let's see. Imo for it not to be a counterfactual statement, where you aren't a solipsist or a (dimensionally?) superior observer compared to other people, you would have to be in superposition and the other person would have to be in superposition exactly until the moment you two meet. That seems to be completely unrealistic. And even if that WAS the case, you would still both find that you both seem to share a nonlocal world where your two superpositions were somehow nonlocally correlated.

[Noax]

where you aren't a solipsist or a (dimensionally?) superior observer compared to other people

None of the local interpretations have anything whatever to do with humans, consciousness, philosophy of mind, or anything not part of natural physics. So if it helps, put simple devices doing each of the measurement points since that's what's there anyway. No people, who's only role in any of the experiments is to say, "yea, that's what the gadget says", and also to put a name tag on a worldline or a frame. I know this is the philosophy of mind (PoM) forum, but we've diverged from that from the start. Locality has zero to do with PoM.

One local interpretation (Copenhagen) is epistemological instead of metaphysical. Still not philosophy since machines can infer a remote state as much as any human can, and we've gotten rid of the humans that so many people seem to think are so special.

I will try to frame the description from a relational view RQM and also an MWI view, both of which I understand better than the other local ones.
Remember, no people. Spin-entangled particles are measured at events X and Y, each of which sends a signal to a third event Z has both events X and Y in its past light cone.

RQM: Event X does not exist relative to Y, and Y does not exist relative to X since neither is in the past light cone of the other. Both X & Y events exist relative to Z.
MWI: Both spin up and down are measured at events X and Y causing effectively a 'split' in their respective future light cones. Any events no in these future light cones is unaffected by the measurement and the split. Event Z is in both future light cones, resulting in 4 permutations of possible measurements, except two of those (the uncorrelated ones) are not a valid solution to the Schrodinger equation, so in no world are these two permutations measured by Z.

Of course it matter not if event Z has any object that takes notice of what happened at X & Y.

In both RQM and MWI, from say event X, it would be a counterfactual statement to describe what is going on at unmeasured (by X) event Y.


Everett doesn't actually say any of what I described. He only says that the one wave function describing both states containing X and Y evolves according to the schrodinger equation, which has nothing non-local in it. My wording is more the popular MWI wording as popularized by DeWitt which is a nice, if not intuitive visual, but it is the premise of the interpretation that counts in the end.

Imo for it not to be a counterfactual statement ... , you would have to be in superposition and the other person would have to be in superposition exactly until the moment you two meet.

What? No, meeting is not necessary. I speak of events and measurements that take place at them and signals that pass between them. The sun does not need to meet Earth in order for it to provide energy. In the above example, Z needs to measure X and Y, and by measure, I mean the state of Z needs to be a function of X and Y, in any way. No actual recording, knowledge, or deliberate action is involved.

The word superposition isn't correctly used there, but something like that, yes. From any event, the state of any system outside that event's past light cone is not meaningfully in a defined state. That's sort of like superposition, but without some of the criteria to call it that. it very much means that there is no objective state to the universe since there's nothing to measure the universe in an objective way. Hence not realism. The universe cannot be locally real. It can be local. It can be real. It can't be both. So says Bell in '64, and those other guys who said it more precisely 55 years later.

And even if that WAS the case, you would still both find that you both seem to share a nonlocal world where your two superpositions were somehow nonlocally correlated.

Can't be. No two events can measure each other unless they're the same event. Notice that I speak of events instead of objects. Objects are not entirely defined in an unreal universe, especially in MWI where there is no meaningful identity that persists over time. All the usual pragmatic language people use presumes classical reality, as you are doing. As I am doing as well. One cannot not do it. But while classical assumptions work very well, it can be demonstrated that they're wrong.

[Atla]

None of the local interpretations have anything whatever to do with humans, consciousness, philosophy of mind, or anything not part of natural physics. So if it helps, put simple devices doing each of the measurement points since that's what's there anyway. No people, who's only role in any of the experiments is to say, "yea, that's what the gadget says", and also to put a name tag on a worldline or a frame. I know this is the philosophy of mind (PoM) forum, but we've diverged from that from the start. Locality has zero to do with PoM.

One local interpretation (Copenhagen) is epistemological instead of metaphysical. Still not philosophy since machines can infer a remote state as much as any human can, and we've gotten rid of the humans that so many people seem to think are so special.

I will try to frame the description from a relational view RQM and also an MWI view, both of which I understand better than the other local ones.
Remember, no people. Spin-entangled particles are measured at events X and Y, each of which sends a signal to a third event Z has both events X and Y in its past light cone.

RQM: Event X does not exist relative to Y, and Y does not exist relative to X since neither is in the past light cone of the other. Both X & Y events exist relative to Z.
MWI: Both spin up and down are measured at events X and Y causing effectively a 'split' in their respective future light cones. Any events no in these future light cones is unaffected by the measurement and the split. Event Z is in both future light cones, resulting in 4 permutations of possible measurements, except two of those (the uncorrelated ones) are not a valid solution to the Schrodinger equation, so in no world are these two permutations measured by Z.

Of course it matter not if event Z has any object that takes notice of what happened at X & Y.

In both RQM and MWI, from say event X, it would be a counterfactual statement to describe what is going on at unmeasured (by X) event Y.


Everett doesn't actually say any of what I described. He only says that the one wave function describing both states containing X and Y evolves according to the schrodinger equation, which has nothing non-local in it. My wording is more the popular MWI wording as popularized by DeWitt which is a nice, if not intuitive visual, but it is the premise of the interpretation that counts in the end.

What? No, meeting is not necessary. I speak of events and measurements that take place at them and signals that pass between them. The sun does not need to meet Earth in order for it to provide energy. In the above example, Z needs to measure X and Y, and by measure, I mean the state of Z needs to be a function of X and Y, in any way. No actual recording, knowledge, or deliberate action is involved.

The word superposition isn't correctly used there, but something like that, yes. From any event, the state of any system outside that event's past light cone is not meaningfully in a defined state. That's sort of like superposition, but without some of the criteria to call it that. it very much means that there is no objective state to the universe since there's nothing to measure the universe in an objective way. Hence not realism. The universe cannot be locally real. It can be local. It can be real. It can't be both. So says Bell in '64, and those other guys who said it more precisely 55 years later.

Pretty sure that QM is nonlocal in time too so true non-counterfactuality can't be based on time, and besides why treat time as universally real for a no-CFD argument anyway, that's why I tried to avoid it. The above views are incoherent imo but this usually goes under the radar.

Can't be. No two events can measure each other unless they're the same event. Notice that I speak of events instead of objects. Objects are not entirely defined in an unreal universe, especially in MWI where there is no meaningful identity that persists over time. All the usual pragmatic language people use presumes classical reality, as you are doing. As I am doing as well. One cannot not do it. But while classical assumptions work very well, it can be demonstrated that they're wrong.

The entire universe is one "event" and while you keep mentioning measurement, we are actually only talking about coherence and decoherence not measurement. Still no one knows what measurement is. I have my ideas too of course but my QM interpretation involves at least 1 more ("extra" or "intra") dimension similar to the the MWI.

Anyway my point was that no matter what kind of abstract interpretational nonsense we come up about light cones, measurement and anti-realism etc., the experimental results will be the same: we find nonlocal correlations that seem to violate spacetime. So the argument is ultimately moot. QM always produces the nonlocal correlations, it's just the question of whether we try to interpret nonlocality nonlocally or interpret nonlocality locally. Nonlocality means "supersynchronicity", "supersimultaneity".

[Noax]

The entire universe is one "event"

Physics definition of 'event': a point in spacetime. If the universe was one event, there would be extension in neither space nor time. Such is not the empirical case.

abstract interpretational nonsense

Well, you start by presuming it is all nonsense, and then rationalize your position from there.
If you find it all nonsense, we'll let the progress be made by those that don't find it so, even if they don't agree with it.

we find nonlocal correlations that seem to violate spacetime.

How can spacetime be violated, local correlations or not? I didn't know it was something that was open to being violated. I suppose it is something that one can deny (that time is just another dimension orthogonal to the spatial ones), so I guess if one could falsify that model, one could consider spacetime to be violated, but I don't see how nonlocal correlations would be that falsification.

my QM interpretation involves at least 1 more ("extra" or "intra") dimension similar to the the MWI.

Didn't know MWI required or concludes an extra dimension. Been reading pop fic again?

[Atla]

Physics definition of 'event': a point in spacetime. If the universe was one event, there would be extension in neither space nor time. Such is not the empirical case.

Then what are you babbling about events measuring each other. A point can't measure anything.

Well, you start by presuming it is all nonsense, and then rationalize your position from there.
If you find it all nonsense, we'll let the progress be made by those that don't find it so, even if they don't agree with it.

What progress Of course most QM interpretations use a lot of unnecessary philosophical nonsense. If you want to be a solipsist you don't need QM for it.

How can spacetime be violated, local correlations or not? I didn't know it was something that was open to being violated. I suppose it is something that one can deny (that time is just another dimension orthogonal to the spatial ones), so I guess if one could falsify that model, one could consider spacetime to be violated, but I don't see how nonlocal correlations would be that falsification.

I didn't say falsified. It's weird that you seem to be well-read on QM yet seem to have no idea what nonlocality is. Nonlocality is bad for solipsism.

Didn't know MWI required or concludes an extra dimension. Been reading pop fic again?

Look up what the M stands for in MWI and think about it for a second. Do you know what an objectively real universal wavefunction means.

[Noax]

Then what are you babbling about events measuring each other. A point can't measure anything.

A measurement takes place at a location in space and time. A specific location in space and time (spacetime) is an event.

I still don't know how you think spacetime can be violated. My guess was apparently off the mark.

Look up what the M stands for in MWI and think about it for a second. Do you know what an objectively real universal wavefunction means.

You make it sound like other worlds are some distance away, all arranged in a neat sorted line. Everett's thesis has no 'M' in it, and even DeWitt's coining of that didn't suggest a dimension with coordinates and such.

Anyway, other worlds are not in a new spatial location any more than the dead and live cat are in different boxes.