On 7/9/2021 4:40 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 9:29:24 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:


    On 7/7/2021 2:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
    <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


        On 7/7/2021 10:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


        On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via
        Everything List <everyth...@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 <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


                On 7/6/2021 6:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


                On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett
                <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

                    On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch
                    <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

                        On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent
                        Meeker' via Everything List
                        <everyth...@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
                            <everyth...@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.


        ?? If I do that by entangling with a superposition, then I
        either collapse it or "I'm of two minds".


    Yeah you spoil the process by interrupting it early, but it lets
    you verify the computation reaches those intermediate states in
    the course of its normal evolution, including in those that you
    allow the algorithm to run to completion.


            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.


        My original point was, "And you're never going to find a
        being that behaves intelligently based on information that
        can be quantum erased."  In the environment A=0, B=0, and any
        other set of A, B values the algorithm outputs B=1 and then
        erases it.  Is this intelligent behavior?

    It's perhaps a thermostat level of intelligence, but you can make
    it arbitrarily complex, as in Deutsch's AI example that does the
    same thing as this simple circuit.

    No matter how complex you make it (and maybe because you make it
    complex) you cannot both act on it and quantum erase it.  There's
    a reason that intelligent beings live in a quasi-classical world. 
    They would never evolve in a world that was reversible.  And as
    Bruce points out, this world is not just statistically
    irreversible, it's inherently irreversible because all but a
    finite part is receding faster than the speed of light.

    Brent


The accelerated expansion of the universe does not contribute to entropy.

The irreversibility of radiation doesn't increase the entropy of the universe, but it increases the entropy of any local finite part.

Brent

The role of quantum decoherence is phenomenologically evident, in that with wave function collapse or reduction quantum coherent states become a statistical decoherent set. In one way or another quantum entanglement is lost and qubits are either local due to MWI splitting, maybe there is real collapse as in GRW or some other thing. I have a different way of looking at this that does not involve these interpretations.

LC
--
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 <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b00b8baf-c2c2-4a81-a168-07259ecbd0den%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b00b8baf-c2c2-4a81-a168-07259ecbd0den%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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/042ede2f-b58f-2f11-1e28-1b48f1fa0bab%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to