On 8/2/2019 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 8/2/2019 12:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 8/2/2019 10:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Quantum computers work by interference of quits,
and such interference can only take place in one
world -- different worlds are orthogonal. The
fact that one can analyse a quantum computer in
a particular basis which can be represented as a
series of parallel computations does not mean
that this is actually what happens. Heuristic
constructs seldom correspond to reality.
None of this comes anywhere close to addressing my
question.
Well, you have either not understood the question, or my
answer to it.
I asked where those 10^1000 intermediate computation states
are realized, and your reply was a basic description of how
quantum computers use qubits and interference. You said
this all takes place in one world, but the total information
content and computational capacity of the observable
universe about 800 orders of magnitude less than 10^1000.
You then added a sentence that suggested the intermediate
computational states perhaps don't exist, but then how does
the correct answer get into the output bits when we read it?
David Deutsch said he has never seen a sensible answer to
the question of how quantum computers work from the context
of any single-universe interpretation. Do you think your
answer would satisfy him?
All those "intermediate computation states" are so "numerous"
because the state is being expressed as a superposition of
qubit basis states. From another viewpoint the state is just
a single ray in Hilbert space that happens to not be
orthogonal to any of those bases
So in your view, are they real?
What "they"? There's only a single state. It's like saying there
are infinitely many tones in a square wave...just because you
represented it as a Fourier series. The are 2^1e4 potential
measurement results, depending on what you choose to measure...but
that's true in the classical case too.
Do you agree the final states you measured were caused by the
intermediate states of the computation?
How many intermediate states of the computation are there?
One. It's a unitary evolution of the input state.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f1865da-e0ec-c359-885f-53787c1dd2b8%40verizon.net.
