Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> *As I recall even Shor's algorithm has a probabilistic step so that the > answer is only correct with high probability, not certainty. * > So your argument is that a Quantum Computer can't be intelligent because it is capable of committing error. Well,... a human brain is most certainly capable of committing error, in fact it's very very good at doing exactly that, and yet it seems to be capable of intelligent behavior, at least some of the time. > *> I don't think a "being" can have knowledge that can be quantum > erased. Such a "being" would have to be isolated from the environment * A quantum computer, or a computer of any sort for that matter, that is totally isolated from the environment would be absolutely useless. Both a quantum computer and a human brain must be isolated to some degree, that's why we have a bone skull; admittedly for a Quantum Computer the isolation must be more sophisticated and extensive so that the only changes made from the outside come from deliberate changes carefully made by keyboards and other precision input devices. *> and have a relatively small number of degrees of freedom. * That is nonsense, the entire advantage of Quantum Computers is that they have vastly more degrees of freedom than a conventional computer. To describe the state of a n bit conventional processor you'd need n real numbers; but to describe the state of a n qubit Quantum Computer you'd need 2^n complex numbers, and thanks to the Born rule you need 2 complex numbers to define a unique real number so that means a n qubit Quantum Computer has 2*(2^n) -2 real degrees of freedom. The -2 is there because you have to remove 2 to normalized phase and amplitude. * > you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based on > information that can be quantum erased.* If that is true it would mean there's something in the fundamental laws of physics that would prevent the construction of large scale Quantum Computers, as we already know it's possible to make small Quantum Computers because we've already done it. Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson has said that if somebody could demonstrate that that it's true they can't be made then for him personally it would be even more exciting then if somebody actually made a large scale Quantum Computer because he is a theoretician, and as the fundamental laws of physics are currently understood a large scale quantum computer is possible, so if it's proved it's not possible after all then that could only mean new laws of fundamental physics have been discovered. To insist they can't be made you must invoke new hypothetical physics. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> qqnn -- 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/CAJPayv38svFM7XGsu%3DYCvH6TM0Lyrx8C6qryYZBcRYDJDfKQow%40mail.gmail.com.
