A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox · HackerPapers discussions

A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox — mentioned by pdonis

Wed, 31 Jul 2024 03:45:20 GMT

For those who can't get past the paywall on the actual paper by Cavalcanti et al., the arxiv preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox — mentioned by nimish

Sun, 19 Dec 2021 23:37:17 GMT

There are other possible choices that reject superdeterminism but are still ok: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607 -- you have to abandon either locality or the assumption that observed events exist absolutely Personally I think it's easiest to reject the "absoluteness" of events and subscribe to RQM or QBism. Superdeterminism is a little boring if ultimately plausible.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox — mentioned by mellosouls

Sun, 30 Aug 2020 14:02:36 GMT

Rendered for web: https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1907.05607/

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox — mentioned by bondarchuk

Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:07:47 GMT

The original Wigner's friend paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend The paradox seems to rest on magical thinking about consciousness, and if one simply accepts that a conscious observer can be in a superposition like any other piece of matter, the paradox is resolved. And, from the article: For Wigner, this was an absurd conclusion. Instead, he believed that once the consciousness of an observer becomes involved, the entanglement would “collapse” to make the friend’s observation definite. But what if Wigner was wrong? Well, obviously Wigner is wrong, sorry for being…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox — mentioned by 4ad

Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:50:46 GMT

Actual paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.