Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ap1i+
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Robots & free will (was Re: The limitations of logic)
Message-ID: <IXrfm6y00XoWM0gFtA@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 26 Jan 89 06:36:54 GMT
References: <3328@sdsu.UUCP> <43228@linus.UUCP> <539@uceng.UC.EDU> <3550@ingr.com> <226@UNIX386.Convergent.COM> <1374@arctic.nprdc.arpa>,
	<9256@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: <9256@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>

>>from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the
>>MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se.  For example,
>>consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints
>>the result on a piece of paper.  The device is left alone in a room
>>
>     The problem is entirely the fact that someone (with consciousness)
>     had to design and build the measuring device.

I always thought that the measurement takes place when the robot sees it, but
the state function doesn't collapse until a person reads the robot.

This is all much more coherent if you allow each person to have his own view of
the universe. When one person makes the measurement, the function collapses for
him; but for another guy outside the room, it's still fuzzy (even more fuzzy,
really, since the state of the first person is now fuzzy too.)

Tomorrow I'll drag out my quantum-for-the-idiot book and look it up.

--Z