Mike Lorrey wrote:
> So I am trying to send you a '1' bit as opposed to an '0' bit. When you
> are listening, you are observing every few planck time units, while I am
> observing constantly. You record a pattern of UUUUUUUUUU in your
> observations, which is a rather low probability series of observations
> if the other end is not being observed (i.e. randomness), but if it is
> observed, it is consistent with its state being maintained by constant
> observation. Therefore, a random pattern of observations would mean the
> other end isn't being observed, and a non-random pattern means the other
> end is under constant observation (i.e. its state is being maintained).
This is a gorgeous scheme, but doesn't a single observation - on either
end - destroy the entanglement?
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT