- #1
- 907
- 572
- TL;DR Summary
- In the linked video, Sean Caroll explains why, under the Many Worlds interpretation, we can't have the experience of seeing things like Schroedinger's cat in a superposition.
I'm trying to propose a simpler reason for this, but I need help.
Sean Carroll on why we don't see things in a superposition [30:44] ---
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVmeOCJjOU&feature=youtu.be&t=1843
Here's my attempt at a simpler reason (but I need some help).
In the figure, we have a photon source and two mirrors M1 and M2. M2 is 100% reflective, but M1 can be switched between absent, 50% and 100%.
Now here's a reasonable assumption:
For example, the top neuron encodes the experience of "I saw a flash in my right eye"
And now here's a strong intuition that I have, for which I am unable to articulate a proof:
===========
Firstly, I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether the above makes some sense.
Secondly, how can one prove (or disprove) the statement (b) above?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVmeOCJjOU&feature=youtu.be&t=1843
Here's my attempt at a simpler reason (but I need some help).
In the figure, we have a photon source and two mirrors M1 and M2. M2 is 100% reflective, but M1 can be switched between absent, 50% and 100%.
- If M1 is absent, the primitive sentient creature on the right sees a flash of light in its right eye.
- If M1 is 100% reflective, the creature sees a flash in its left eye.
- If M1 is 50% reflective, the creature is in a superposition of having seen a flash in the right and left eye.
Now here's a reasonable assumption:
(a) In order to be able to encode (and hence to experience) one of the above states, the creature must have at least one neuron (or other such element) that is active only in that state.
For example, the top neuron encodes the experience of "I saw a flash in my right eye"
And now here's a strong intuition that I have, for which I am unable to articulate a proof:
(b) It is impossible to design a creature such that one of its neurons will be activated only when the stimulus corresponds to a superposition.
===========
Firstly, I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether the above makes some sense.
Secondly, how can one prove (or disprove) the statement (b) above?