On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2020 3:39 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Of course any computation is going to be finite or involve a finite number > of bits. This happens as well with quantum computers, but there is one > difference. Two states can be prepared and entangled so they have a > continuum of probabilities depending upon measurement angle. This is what > separates QM from classical mechanics. > > > I've wondered about this. Of course a lot variables in the theory are > continua; not just angle but also position. Yet none of those can be > measured to arbitrary precision. And the more precisely one is, the less > precisely it's conjugate can be...which is what separate QM from classical > mechanics. Holevo's theorem limits what we can know about a state. > > Brent > > > I was going to comment here but just to re-quote Max Tegmark's dictum:
Our challenge as physicists is to discover the infinity-free equations describing it—the true laws of physics. It seems to always be needed to restate to physicists *as Vic Stenger did): Just because a *mathematical theory* someone came up with to model physical stuff has property X doesn't mean that the *physical stuff* has property X. @philipthrift -- 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/333d163e-ee12-428f-986d-abbff87836a3o%40googlegroups.com.
