On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your
consciousness.
If the copy is not exact then functional equivalence is not exact
either and this is fatal for the model.
Then you should mourn the Stephen P. King of and hour ago. He's been
fatally changed.
Never, I am not the impermanent image on the world stage. I am the
fire that casts the images.
This is not qubits that are involved... The point here is that this
comp model assume that Reality is, at is ground level, classical.
It doesn't assume that. A fully quantum computation can be
performed on a classical, i.e. Turing, computer. Bruno would just
say it just takes a lower level of substitution.
Yes, a classical computer can emulate a finite quantum
computation given sufficient resources. This is not the same thing as
the EPR effect that I am considering. The idea that I am considering
is more like this:
Consider the visible physical universe. We know from observation that
not only is it open on one end and that it's expansion is
accelerating. People want to put this off on some "Dark Energy". I
think that it is something else, driving it. Consider a classical
computer that needs to emulate a quantum computation. It has to have
even increasing resources to keep up with the QC if the QC is
modeling an expanding universe. It we take Bruno's AR literally,
where are these resources coming from?
They are computations. They exist in Platonia. He's trying to explain
matter, so he can't very well assume material resources. The world is
made out of arithmetic, an infinite resource.
Sure, but the explanation of the idea requires matter to be
communicated. A slight oversight perhaps.
Let's turn the tables and make Reality Quantum in its essence.
The classical computation may just be something that the QC is running.
There's not difference as computations.
You are correct but only in the absence of considerations of inputs
and outputs and their concurrency. Abstract theory leaves out the
obvious, but when it pretends to toss out the obvious, that is going to far.
What is most interesting is that the QC can run an arbitrary number
of classical computations, all at the same time. The CC can only
barely compute the emulation of a single QC.
You are talking about QC and CC as though they were material computers
with finite resources. Once you've assumed material resources you've
lost any non-circular possibility of explaining them.
No, I am pointing out that real computations require real
resources. Only when we ignore this fact we can get away with floating
castles in midair.
What if we have an infinite and eternal QC running infinitely many
finite CCs and each of these CC's is trying to emulate a single QC.
Map this idea out and look at the nice self-referential loop that
this defines!
You're confused.
Maybe. I can handle being wrong. I learn from mistakes.
Brent
--
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
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.
