Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality

Georgina Woodward

It is helpful to recognize that an outcome or result is a new abstract entity being formed, that can be memorized or recorded. It is not the object, Consider a dice roll. The outcome could be 6. but 6 is just shown by one object is still 6 sided. there has been a choice only to consider the upper face.

Schrodinger's cat: existing cat interacts with its existing environment leading to condition of existing cat. Modelled as both outcomes that might be observed although the existing cat can not be both observation products i.e. a seen live cat and seen dead cat. Because either observation product is only formed at observation. The wave function is not a premeasurement cat but an amalgamation of future possibilities oof what might be observed.

[deleted]

There is still an existing animal when a singular observation product is formed and the abstract entity, it's state is noted. Friend outside doesn't have their own observation product or noted state, so the wave function representing what might in the future be observed is still relevant. What might be observed but is not yet actually an observation is different from the actual existing cat , alive or dead

Georgina Woodward

This relies on there being object permeance. that is objects that exist existing even if not seen or measured.

Georgina Woodward

"Wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs."

There is no existing state prior to measurement. There is no relation with the measurement apparatus that can give a singular 'measured this way' outcome. This had been widely i interpreted as meaning it is not something actual, rather than lacks a relative to specific observer viewpoint or measurement process. In place of what there is, until we have a singular description, is consideration of the liklihood of finding different outcomes when measurement takes place . These outcomes do not yet exist as they can only be formed when the measured object and measuring apparatus relation happens.so pre measurement there is contemplation of one future outcome that will be actualized and other outcomes that are just imaginary; unless using the Many worlds theory. This is therefore not something real.

Georgina Woodward

I said not real as in not existing physically because it is partly pertaining to the future and partly imaginary. i have previously thought that the wave function is no longer relevant when measurement happens wrongly thinking it represents the object . Its actually what might be the outcome. The outcome should be regarded as a ew abstract entity that can be 'in mind ', written on paper, memorized, recorded by a device .Having acquired that score like outcome, the wave function that was in use premeasurement is no longer relevant. Measurement is not bringing objects inti existence but new score like abstract entities are being introduced.

The existing unseen, unmeasured object can still exist (in absolute relation to everything else existing locally). Object permeance is relevant.

Georgina Woodward

That should say Object permanence is relevant.

Georgina Woodward

I also meant to write- a new abstract entity-

gaozhe

Georgina Woodward Hello, I've read your paper on the question "Is the Moon there when nobody looks?" It's a very interesting paper. Your argument is clear and correct, but unfortunately, it misses the core issue, which involves quantum decoherence theory. Imagine countless light quanta continuously striking the Moon. What can we deduce from this? Undoubtedly, even when you are not looking at the Moon, it is being struck by light quanta, producing the light that allows us to see it. Therefore, the physical reality you describe is indeed real. The image reality is simply a matter of us not looking at the Moon. Your reasoning is correct! Why does this fall under the category of quantum decoherence? Because the primary reason for quantum decoherence is the diffusion of light or information. Information diffusion leads to the physical images we see in the normal, classical macroscopic world—such as your assertion that the Moon always exists. This is my reasoning.

Georgina Woodward

I like to ask if you will kindly take a look at the discussion of my paper now called "Metaphysics Alteration and Exploring the Relationships Between Existing, Probability and Measurement Outcomes; Consequence for Ideas About Entanglement and Restoring Causality"over on viXra. https://vixra.org/abs/2301.0068

Link to abstract and discussion Link works, i tried it.

The response to my writing it has not been positive but it has given me the opportunity to defend my reasoning and address their specific theory and experimental results based objections. I think I will post my thoughts about the measurement problem I posted on this site over in the discussion there to see if there is any response

Georgina Woodward

First a little reiteration because its best considered together.

A wave function is not physically real being a pre-measurement superposition of ;what will be the outcome after the measuring process has happened and imagined outcomes that will not come to be. It does not collapse causing the definite state object to come into being. It is replaced with a new abstract entity, which is a score like outcome. The outcome 'score' can be recorded in different ways, be held in mind (thought) or memorized. The object after measurement is a different entity from the abstract score like outcome. When the replacement is done the wave function is no longer relevant. What might be is replaced by what is known to be. What is before the knowledge is acquired and part of mental awareness or stored for future access is another matter. There will be temporal delay between the physical 'measurement' interaction happening and registering of a detection. Thinking of Schrödinger's cat, the cat and poison interaction can have happened some time before opening the box but until the box is opened what might be found (to be found and imagined will not be found) is still relevant. Keeping in mind the wave function is not the animal.

Georgina Woodward

This also makes Wigner's friend type problems not paradoxical. The knowledge of friend, who is told the outcome by the observer, and direct observer of the cat can be different without logical contradiction. Its about whether or not the abstract outcome score has been acquired (individual replacement of wavefunction i.e. what might be found) not the condition of the animal in the meantime. That different observers replace the wave function at different times, when they have access to the information, is no more strange than relativity

gaozhe

Roger Granet This depends on whether your A1 system is open or closed. If the A1 system is open, it may potentially affect particles outside of A1. Conversely, if it is closed and isolated, it will not have any impact. We can also consider A1 and A2 as a single system. If A1 is open, it will affect particles outside of A1. Returning to your question about A1 and A2, by observing A2, you have changed the properties of A1. A1 is an open system. Conclusion: It affects particles outside of A1.

Roger Granet

gaozhe Thanks!

gaozhe

Roger Granet Alright, the key issue with Schrödinger's cat lies in the mismatch of time scales. We simply need to extend the timeframe to that of the macroscopic world, and then we can observe a normal macroscopic event—whether the cat is alive or dead—rather than a superimposed cat that is both dead and alive. This is a process. Apologies for providing the wrong URL earlier; here is the correct one: https://zenodo.org/records/17638135

« Previous Page