On 26 Mar 2013, at 00:25, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:59:05PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
This is true, however real randomness is aavailable, through the
very
first person ineterminancy phenomenon you mention below,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:59:05PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
This is true, however real randomness is aavailable, through the very
first person ineterminancy
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 13:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bruno Marchal
No machine can distinguish randomness from the behavior of a more complex
machine than herself
It's true that in general a machine cannot prove that something
is purely random, but a human can't do that either nor can anything else.
If the smallest computer program that can generate a string of
On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 13:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I still find it hard to grasp how we could have a creative process
without some degree of random exploration.
Why random. Pseudo
On 25 Mar 2013, at 15:47, John Clark wrote:
No machine can distinguish randomness from the behavior of a more
complex machine than herself
It's true that in general a machine cannot prove that something is
purely random, but a human can't do that either nor can anything
else. If the
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:59:05PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
This is true, however real randomness is aavailable, through the very
first person ineterminancy phenomenon you mention below, and evolution
doesn't care, it will exploit
On 21 Mar 2013, at 13:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
So here the speed is of conceptual importance. If
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2013, at 13:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I still find it hard to grasp how we could have a creative process
without some degree of random exploration.
Why random. Pseudo random can be enough, or the natural randomness
On 21 Mar 2013, at 23:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is
still
independent of it.
I still
The following article about Quantum Computers was on page one of the
business section of today's New York Times:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Our digital age is all about bits, those
precise ones and zeros that are the stuff of modern computer code. But a
powerful new type of computer
On 3/22/2013 1:22 PM, John Clark wrote:
The following article about Quantum Computers was on page one of the
business section of today's New York Times:
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Our digital age is all about bits, those
precise ones and zeros that are the stuff of modern
13195212121
Demonstrating these sorts of exponential speedups only falsifies the
proposition that a human mind is an ordinary classical computer (but
not COMP). It does not confirm in any way that a human mind operates
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is still
independent of it.
I still find it hard to grasp how we could have a creative
On 3/21/2013 6:04 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is still
independent of it.
I still find it
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2013 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between
Lewis
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as AI
research has been funded by the military. Threats of war are often
used to
On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as AI
research has been funded by the
On 3/20/2013 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as
On 3/20/2013 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote:
I think it likely that the first applications will be providing
soldiers with
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Since you seem to talk philosophy, let me translate what you
13195212121
Demonstrating these sorts of exponential speedups only falsifies the
proposition that a human mind is an ordinary classical computer (but
not COMP).
OK.
It does not confirm in any way that a human mind operates
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Since you
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as good as a quantum computer for finding a
needle in a haystack.
Could you show me a quantum computer that
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as good as a quantum computer for finding a
needle in a
) Factorize 13195212121
Demonstrating these sorts of exponential speedups only falsifies the
proposition that a human mind is an ordinary classical computer (but
not COMP). It does not confirm in any way that a human mind operates
as a quantum computer, since random
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes.
We only need one idiot-savant to demonstrate this.
By contrast, being unable to demonstrate this scaling means - well
nothing
at all, actually.
I agree with Russell here.
More generally
On 19.03.2013 16:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as
classical computer (but
not COMP). It does not confirm in any way that a human mind operates
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes.
We only need one idiot-savant to demonstrate this.
By contrast, being unable to demonstrate
the
proposition that a human mind is an ordinary classical computer
(but
not COMP). It does not confirm in any way that a human mind
operates
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes.
We only need one idiot-savant to demonstrate
Factorize 13195212121
Rain Man?
Even Rain Man couldn't figure out that 2^57885161 -1 is a prime number as a
conventional computer did about a month ago, the number has 17,425,170
digits. This is the sort of problem that quantum computers would be
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 16:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:13, John Clark wrote:
Factorize 13195212121
Rain Man?
Even Rain Man couldn't figure out that 2^57885161 -1 is a prime
number as a conventional computer did about a month ago, the number
has 17,425,170 digits. This is the sort
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis
Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.sheldrake.org/DC/controversies/genomewager.html
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:05:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes.
My point to Russell
On 3/19/2013 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis Wolpert and Rupert
Sheldrake
Hi michael haaheim
Since mind is a MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/18/2013
Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous.
- Albert Einstein
- Receiving the following content -
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
- Roger Clough
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/18/2013
Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous.
- Albert Einstein
--
You received this message because you are
Roger,
Even faster. Instantly from a human perspective,
otherwie the universe cannot be holographic.
Richard
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi michael haaheim
Since mind is a MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Since you seem to talk philosophy, let me translate what you say for
our friends the scientists.
If we assume
these sorts of exponential speedups only falsifies the
proposition that a human mind is an ordinary classical computer (but
not COMP). It does not confirm in any way that a human mind operates
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes
41 matches
Mail list logo
