Thanks for sending this, I’ll read it with interest!

Best,

Paul

LikeLike

]]>Thank you very much for this interesting review and concise presentation of Penrose’s reasoning.

As for the computational mind and Penrose-Lucas ideas based on Goedel’s theorem,

I have not seen better dismantling of (at least some of) such arguments than this one:

https://www.academia.edu/9945975/Penroses_metalogical_argument_is_unsound

All the best,

Wojciech Kryszak

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Weizsacker understood QM as a generalized probability theory many decades ago, and his works where very ahead of his time. His Ur program is the original “It from bit”.

LikeLike

]]>It would be great to discuss your problems with decoherence, but you haven’t yet told me what they are! Unfortunately I don’t have time to read this paper you mentioned — I read the paragraph you suggested but it didn’t make sense to me without having read the rest of his argument.

Perhaps you could start by explaining what is wrong with the examples I gave of decoherence in my paper in the section titled Decoherence, starting on page 2. (Here’s the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.09062.pdf)

Cheers

Paul

LikeLike

]]>Thank you so much for your reply.

Why do I think that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem?

Well, thre is so much fuss about decoherence and now quantum Darwinism, so many serious people working in this field, that I can not simply ignore them.

I have started studying their contributions in earnest with strong feeling that there must be something important about the world that decoherence can reveal, yet the more I read the more I am puzzled and worried.

I am not very advanced in my study of the formalism and its consequences, but it is not something wrong with the formalism that keeps me awake at nights 🙂

I have rather serious difficulties to grasp the meaning, the foundations.

To be honest, I am not a 100% layman, but now I am more interested in philosophy of physics (and were my first name be different, I would have lost my initial enthusiasm for the works of Wojciech H. Zurek long time ago 😉 )

Reading more about the philosophy of quantum theory I have got infected with doubts that seems fatal and incurable for me.

The main infector for me was Chris Fields, take a look on his argumentation here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6629v6

(about decoherence in the last paragraph of chapter 4, I do not understand what he writes in chap 5 and I suspect him of being wrong there but it does not matter)

or here: https://chrisfieldsresearch.com/quant-freedom.pdf

As you can see, it is not some specific part of the measurement problem that decoherence have not elucidated yet, the problem is deeper (I feel it must be so, as the observer is the keystone)

But it is so good to have such problem to think about, what a sad world would it be, were such problems could be solved so easily with decoherence or something like that!

Best regards,

Wojciech

LikeLike

]]>Thanks for your comment and interest!

In my opinion decoherence does completely solve the measurement problem, but I didn’t fully explain this in my essay, hence the wording I used. But apologies if what I wrote in the abstract was misleading.

You said: “Is not the measurement problem (with ubiquitous questions about the role of the observer) the core, the essence of the problem of why and how our classical reality emerges?”

Generally I do agree with this! It depends on exactly how you define the measurement problem, and what aspect of classical reality you are trying to explain, but I agree that generally the measurement problem is a key part.

So, why do you think that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem? Which specific part of the measurement problem is not solved? If you tell me this, I will try to answer as best I can.

Best,

Paul

LikeLike

]]>