Bruno:
thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences:
*2^16 parallel universes needed
to implement the quantum superposition** - used in Shor's
quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers*.
I would not limit the numbers and fix the quality of future development.
Nor do I take it for granted that today's logic in math (arithmetics) will
hold.
* 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
*.
Ihave more faith in 'the new': maybe that will be something better than
today's uncertainty-riding "quantum" idea.
John M
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
--
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.
