tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post167073001256235341..comments2016-12-05T22:39:48.358-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Are you Gork?Stephen Hsunoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-40098894860769798552008-04-28T15:37:00.000-04:002008-04-28T15:37:00.000-04:00Carson,Yes, if you can eliminate small norm states...Carson,<BR/><BR/>Yes, if you can eliminate small norm states you can derive the Born rule from MW.<BR/><BR/>Everett (and subsequent authors) emphasized N goes to infinity and tossing out exactly zero norm states.<BR/><BR/>If there is an inherent "fuzziness" in quantum state space (Hilbert space), we may be able to throw out the small norm states at finite N, which is what I proposed with Buniy stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-39183721610698908962008-04-28T15:02:00.000-04:002008-04-28T15:02:00.000-04:00OK thanks. I finally get it. I've been conflatin...OK thanks. I finally get it. I've been conflating (L2 norm)^2 with probability but that is not a given a priori.<BR/><BR/>So in your slides, you argued that the small norm states are undetectable to the uncertainty in our measurements. Is that a self-consistent way for justifying the discreteness of space-time?<BR/><BR/>ccCarson Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464737817585277975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-52078485649309921892008-04-28T13:57:00.000-04:002008-04-28T13:57:00.000-04:00Hi Carson,The probability of being on a maverick b...Hi Carson,<BR/><BR/>The probability of being on a maverick branch is not low. There are many more maverick branches than non-maverick branches (overwhelmingly so). If you take a frequentist point of view, we should be on a maverick branch.<BR/><BR/>The only justification we can give for being on a non-M branch is that the M branches have small norm. But equating norm^2 = probability is simply thestevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-18368869758007488122008-04-28T13:40:00.000-04:002008-04-28T13:40:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,Well I definitely think I'm no different ...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>Well I definitely think I'm no different from Gork the robot.<BR/><BR/>I keep thinking that I must not be understanding something because I find that many worlds is the only theory that makes sense. To me, many worlds is no weirder than QM. Both are out of the sphere of our classical intuition.<BR/><BR/>I want to pin you down more on those pesky maverick worlds. Are you not Carson Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464737817585277975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-47403868423150132572008-04-27T13:14:00.000-04:002008-04-27T13:14:00.000-04:00Yes, if Gork only causes *apparent* (to him) colla...Yes, if Gork only causes *apparent* (to him) collapse, but actually splits into multiple branches (which are necessary for the quantum algorithm), then the computation proceeds as desired.<BR/><BR/>But, if Gork causes *fundamental* collapse (i.e., von Neumann projection, which is not unitary) then the QC does not exhibit unitary evolution and therefore does not execute the algortihm properly.<BR/stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-47453609890946528432008-04-27T12:57:00.000-04:002008-04-27T12:57:00.000-04:00I'm pretty sure that even if Gork does collapse th...I'm pretty sure that even if Gork does collapse the wave equation (from his point of view), we still get the right answer.<BR/><BR/>Reminds me of an experiment where they used an electron to observe a photon, but we could decide after the fact whether it had been "observing" or part of a larger entangled system.<BR/><BR/>Somehow, everything works out in the end.Random Stuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04102526429223467210noreply@blogger.com