DanielLC comments on Distinct Configurations - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 April 2008 04:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (23)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ksvanhorn 01 May 2012 03:45:08AM 1 point [-]

No, it doesn't have to happen. Consider the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester. The outcome depends on whether or not the bomb could have exploded, regardless of whether or not it actually does. You might object that in the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics both happen, but the situation can equally well be described using Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves waves that propagate backwards in time, and in which only one of the two possibilities (explode or don't explode) occurs. Whether MWI or TI or some other interpretation is the correct one, this demonstrates that backward-in-time signalling allows a "mere possibility", that does not actually occur, to have measurable effects.

Comment author: DanielLC 01 May 2012 05:55:53PM 0 points [-]

From what I can understand, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation is basically a way to justify waveform collapse. The tester sees what he does because the plunger sent the signals causing waveform collapse. As far as I can tell, he never says what triggers the wave-form collapse. If it's just too much stuff getting entangled, then that's what causes the result you see, not mere possibilities.