On 14 Mar 2012, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote:
Brent and Bruno:
you both have statements in this endless discussion about processing
ideas of quantum computers.
I would be happy to read about ONE that works, not a s a
potentiality, but as a real tool, the function of which is
understood and APPLIED. (Here, on Earth).
It is an *immense* technical challenge. Up to now, a quantum circuit
has only succeeded in showing that 15 is equal to 3*5, which might
seems ridiculous for todays applied computing domains, but which is
still an extraordinary technical prowess as it involves handling of
the 2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the quantum
superposition used in Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime
factors of numbers.
The amazing thing is that all the arguments of unfeasibility of
quantum computers have been overcome by quantum software, like the
quantum error corrections, and the topological fault tolerant quantum
machinery.
I have few doubts that quantum computers will appear, but I am quite
uncertain if it is for this century of for the next millennium. But
bigger quantum circuits will emerge this century, and quantum
cryptographic technic might already exist, but that's a military
secret, and a banker secret :).
There is also some prospect to discover quantum machinery operating in
nature. I read some times ago, that a super-heavy object has been
discovered which structure seemed to have to be unstable for much
physicists and some have elaborated models in which quarks are
exploiting a quantum-computational game to attain stability.
And then, to make happy Stephen, the "not very plausible yet not
entirely excluded despite what Tegmark argues" possibility that life
exploits quantum algorithm. See for example the two following papers
referred to in my today's mail:
1) Clark, K.B. (2010). Bose-Einstein condensates form in heuristics
learned by ciliates deciding to signal 'social' commitments.
BioSystems, 99(3), 167-178. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883726
2) Clark, K.B. (2010). Arrhenius-kinetics evidence for quantum
tunneling in microbial "social" decision rates. Communicative &
Integtrative Biology, 3(6), 540-544. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cib/article/12842
I am skeptical to be franc. Not too much time to dig on this for now.
The second is freely available. if someone want to comment on it,
please do.
Bruno
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 3/12/2012 7:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:00 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/11/2012 11:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
An Evil Wizard could pop into my vicinity and banish me to
the Nether plane! A "magical act", if real and just part of a
story, is an event that violates some conservation law. I don't
see what else would constitute magic... My point is that Harry
Potterisms would introduce cul-de-sacs that would totally screw
up the statistics and measures, so they have to be banished.
Because otherwise things would be screwed up?
Chain-wise consistency and concurrency rules would prevent these
pathologies, but to get them we have to consider multiple and
disjoint observers and not just "shared" 1p as such implicitly
assume an absolute frame of reference. Basically we need both
conservation laws and general covariance. Do we obtain that
naturally from COMP? That's an open question.
You seem to be begging the question: We need regularity, otherwise
things wouldn't be regular.
No, you are dodging the real question: How is the measure
defined?
The obvious way is that all non-self-contradictory events are
equally likely. But that's hypothesized, not defined. I'm not sure
why you are asking how it's defined. The usual definition is an
assignment of a number in [0,1] to every member of a Borel set such
that they satisfies Kolmogorov's axioms.
If it is imposed by fiat, say so and defend the claim. Why is it so
hard to get you to consider multiple observers and consider the
question as to how exactly do they interact? Al of the discussion
that I have seen so far considers a single observer and
abstractions about other people. The most I am getting is the word
"plurality". Is this difficult? Really?
It's difficult because people are trying to explain 'other people'
and taking only their own consciousness as given. If you're going
to assume other people, why not assume physics too?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
