See Also: UQS RE:"Quantum Many Body System"~ FQXi: D. Oriti 11/2021 ... 22/03/18

See Also: UQS Re: "WHY GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE"~ VERITASIUM 10/9/2020... 21/08/08

See Also: UQS Re:"THIS IS MATH'S FATAL FLAW"~ VERITASIUM 2021... 21/08/08

See Also: FQXi Essay:Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability... 20/04/09

See Also: Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Energy Phenomena... 19/11/15

See Also: FQXi Essay: What is Fundamental?... 18/01/03

See Also: UQS Analysis: Nassim Haramein... 16/12/05

See Also: UQS Re: Tommaso Bolognesi ... 16/09/16

See Also: UQS Social Media and Forums ... 16/09/16; Update: 18/05/25; UPDATE: 20/05/29; UPDATE: 21/05/01; UPDATE: 21/06/04; UPDATE: 21/06/20; UPDATE: 21/09/03; UPDATE: 22/03/24; UPDATE: 22/05/12; UPDATE: 22/06/18; UPDATE: 22/07/26; UPDATE: 22/08/18; 22/12/05

See Also: UQS Consciousness Investigation ... 16/01/12

See Also: UQS Data Bus ... 15/04/09

See Also: UQS Analysis: Wave-Particle Duality ... 14/04/01

See Also: UQS Analysis: S. Lloyd; arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225 ... 13/11/17

See Also: UQS Analysis: Vamivakas/Neukirch Laser Exp. ... 13/08/29

See Also: UQS Analysis: S. Lloyd SCIAM Q-computers ... 13/07/28

See Also: UQS Analysis: OPERA Neutrino ... 11/09/29

UQS Comments: S. Lloyd/D. Deutsch Debate... 1995 Hotwired

Ref:

Seth Lloyd and David Deutsch...

From the link at http://meche.mit.edu/people/?id=55, I visited and re-read the Deutsch vs Lloyd, Brain Tennis, Hotwired, July 1197 "debate", and I can logically support Seth's argument that the set of "real" events are forever and irrevocably differentiated from the set of "possible" events, at the Causality Singularity... i.e. at "the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature."~ Wikipedia

Deutsch declares himself a proponent of the "many worlds" theory based on his "belief in Quantum Mechanics", and he apparently attributes Q-randomness as the essence of his interpretation.

Beliefs based on observations of Quantum Mechanics without a valid solution to the theorized Einstein/Higgs lattice are philosophical at best... i.e. no 3D CAD Sim Model available.

Admirably Seth was able to relate, and logically equate Q-randomness with Q- decoherence.

The mechanics of Quantum decoherence does facilitate bit-flipping logic, and I agree with Seth and John
Preskill of Caltech, that *"The most promising (algorithm) for (logic) applications is the simulation of a
quantum system" ~ John Preskill*... Ref: Science News 13/04/07 pg.27

However, use of a logic lens of insufficient resolution to observe apparent entanglement at a scale where
the minimum Quantum of Energy (QE) equals the minimum Spatial Quantum Address of Information (QI), is creating
the illusion that decoherence is inherent in quantum systems... i.e. *"the observed function output is so
entangled (irregular) that it seems to be produced by chance".*

I again refer back to Seth's 1995 Science American Quantum Computing article, and quote him as follows:
*"The random-number programs in digital computers actually generate pseudo random numbers, using a function whose
output is so irregular that it seems to produce bits by chance."*

My work with the UQS CAD Sim Expansion Model has verified that if one utilizes a valid unified field lattice to make one's observations of quantum mechanical behavior at QE=QI scale, path options are resolved as Q-jaggies, which provides considerable evidence to suspect that an inability to verify a photon lattice referent at QE=QI resolution, creates the illusion that a photon can be directed along any specified path.

*"The arrow of time defined by the decoherence process requires a special initial condition for the universal
wave function (namely: little or no initial entanglement). Evidently, this must be a physical condition - it
cannot just be a condition for initial "human knowledge" or some kind of "information". ~ H. Dieter Zeh...
* H.D. Zeh Home

The condition of zero initial entanglement at the causality singularity is facilitated by using the UQS lattice as the solution to the Einstein/Higgs Theoretical Lattice, and it also facilitates the initial condition for evolution of a universal information processor... i.e. a cosmological quantum computer.

The hardwired "boot" intelligence inherent in the UQS lattice facilitates distribution of regularly pulsed minimum quanta of Energy (QE), into an expanding 3D field, quantized by the UQS coordinate system's unified base volume unit.

It is this process which differentiates a set of "real" events from a set of "possible" events.

This is not to say that field sub-entities would not evolve the ability/facility for independent processes/decisions within the field, and Q-field sub-entities (humans) apparently do use bit-flipping logic, and so could Q-computers, but as you have observed, it works only if the Q-field sub-entity remains isolated from knowledge of the QE=QI scale processes/decisions in the field, which are not random.

*"If no new physics will ever be found to apply somewhere between apparatus and observer, we may have to
accept the "many worlds" interpretation.". ~ H. Dieter Zeh...* H.D. Zeh Home

If randomness is essential to Deutsch's "many worlds" interpretation, then Quantum Mechanics does not inherently verify his interpretation... i.e. the minimum quantum reality scale does not require perturbation, decoherence, or randomness.

Initially I filed the Deutsch vs Lloyd, Brain Tennis, Hotwired, July 1995 "debate", under science fantasy, but that was 15 years ago, and hopefully, in quantum matters, logic prevails over philosophy.

Seth, I have located your most recent archived work, arXiv:1310.3225 "A Turing test for free will", and will begin analysis next weekend, unless you e-me a more relevant link for application of UQS logic).

Thanks for your thoughts...S. Lingo

UQS Logician/Author

UQS Virtual Labs; Mogollon, NM USA

UQS Web Home

Most Current

Re: Turing Test for Free Will

DATE:10:22 AM 11/4/2013