On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 7/7/2021 2:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> On 7/6/2021 6:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently >>>>>> based on information that can be quantum erased. >>>>>> >>>>> You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits. >>>>> >>>>> Can you prove that? How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive at >>>>> a definite decision? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Prove? No. But I think I can justify it: >>>> >>>> 1. Quantum computers are Turing equivalent, they can compute anything a >>>> classical computer can. >>>> >>>> 2. Human brains are believed to operate according to physical laws, all >>>> known of which are computable. >>>> >>>> 3. Humans are conscious. >>>> >>>> 4. By any of: Chalmers's principle of "Organizational invariance", or >>>> "multiple realizability", or the "Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle", or >>>> the "computational theory of mind", a functionally equivalent computation >>>> to that of a conscious human brain will be equivalently conscious to that >>>> brain. >>>> >>>> 5. Quantum computers are reversible. >>>> >>>> By 1 & 2, a quantum computer can simulate a human brain. By 3 & 4, such >>>> an emulation will be conscious. By 5 any computation performed by a quantum >>>> computer can be quantum erased by reversing the circuit back to its >>>> starting state. >>>> >>>> It reaches a definite decision by virtue of completing its processing >>>> before ultimately being reversed. This prevents an outside observer from >>>> learning the decision, but it's made nonetheless during the course of the >>>> processing. >>>> >>> >>> How do you know that it has reached a definite decision? Without having >>> it print out some irreversible record? If it prints out a >>> (pseudo-)classical record, the initial state is not recoverable. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> By either: >> >> 1. Analyzing the circuit >> >> But the question is whether such a circuit is possible. >> > Do you disagree with any of the five premises I defined above? If not do > you see a flaw in my reasoning or conclusions? If not, then why shouldn't > such a circuit be possible? > > This what I find dubious: *"It reaches a definite decision by virtue of > completing its processing before ultimately being reversed. This prevents > an outside observer from learning the decision, but it's made nonetheless > during the course of the processing." * First, I doubt that it both reach > a definite decision and have that quantum erasable. > If you doubt it reaches a certain definite decision state, you could interrupt the quantum computer midway through its processing and entangle yourself with one of its superposed states to verify that the AI/mind was in a state of having reached a definition conclusion. > Second, you've made "decision" something internal. Intelligence requires > acting in the world. > > > The environment for this AI are the qubits initialized as the input to the mind. It acts in this world by performing actions that ultimately affect the output of this quantum computation. > > > 2. Having the circuit do something useful and verifiable (as in my >> factoring example) >> >> How would you know that had a causal connection to the quantum erasable >> knowledge? >> > This is why I had the information pass through the "AI function" before > being used in Shor's algorithm. That way there was a causal connection with > the result that would be communicated to the outside world. > > > 3. Having the circuit output that it did observe a definite value but >> without reporting which value it observed (as in Deutsch's original example) >> >> Again, how do you know such a circuit is possible? Most quantum >> computations only produce probable answers in a decohered readout. >> > Ignoring the AI aspect this is a simple and non probabilistic circuit: > > 1. Initialize qubit A to 0 > 2. Initialize qubit B to 0 > 3. Put qubit A into superposition of (0 and 1) via Hadamard gate > 4. Apply Controlled NOT gate to (A, B) using A as the control bit to > read/copy the bit value of A to the state of B. (B now has a definite value > of 1 OR it has a definite value of 0) > 5. Apply Pauli-X (NOT gate) to (B) to flip the bit value of B (it is now > opposite of A). > 6. Apply Controlled NOT gate to (A, B), to have the effect of computing (A > XOR B) and storing the result in B. If A was measured in step 4 as 0, B > will now be 1. Otherwise, if A was measured in step 4 to be 1, B will now > be 1. We now have evidence in qubit B that A was measured to be a 1 or a 0, > but no longer have the which way information in B. > 8. Invert the Hadamard gate applied to A to restore it to 0. > 9. Read the qubits, while initialized to A = 0, B = 0, you will now find A > = 0, B = 1. > > I don't see that 6 is a measurement of anything. It's just creating a > contradiction as way of setting B=1 regardless of the value of A. > > It became 1 by virtue of some causal relations, unless you think it arrived at the value of 1 "reasonlessly". Jason -- 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/CA%2BBCJUjmFEF-%3DyQA8ytJW7B1fGFqBha7UxuURr05pS4PRO0r0A%40mail.gmail.com.
