Re: The new quantum chip

2023-12-04 Thread 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List 
 In the last few years, you predicted a revolution, societally, once we hit the 
heights in successfully entangled, quantum operations. Have you changed your 
mind since this prediction? 
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 03:21:46 PM EST, John Clark 
 wrote:  
 
 Apparently IBM has hardwired a new error correcting algorithm into its new 
quantum chip called "Quantum Low-Density Parity Check" (qLDPC), only 288 
physical Qubits are needed (provided the physical error rate is less than 0.1%) 
to produce 12 perfect logical cubits; with older error correction codes many 
thousands of physical Qubits would have been required. The difficult part was 
that for qLDPC to work each physical Qubit had to be connected to 6 other 
Qubits, in older quantum chips there was only a connection with two or three. 

IBM releases first-ever 1,000-qubit quantum chip

Unveiling IBM Quantum System Two

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ins




-- 
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/CAJPayv3Qj5RjxDA%3DKyxomzi3m%2B2qDv6xci1R2uUDiijuG9i4Ug%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
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/220089947.40933.1701733162277%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.*
>>
>
> It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing
> the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and
> he's desperate. Would it really hurt that much to just admit you're wrong?
>

Wikipedia is not authoritative. It is just someone's opinion.

*I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view.*
>>
>
> Then you have a remarkably poor memory! I'll tell you what I remember,
> writing several rather detailed posts and you just saying I was wrong with
> no specifics. If you think something I said was not sound then please point
> it out, I doubt it but maybe it'll even turn out you're right and then I'll
> have to change my worldview, but to do that you'll have to pinpoint exactly
> where I went wrong.  Next I expect you to say that I made so many errors
> that you are unable to pick out a single one.
>

Perhaps that is the case. But you have not ever derived the Born rule from
MWI, so I can stand by that.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLSuFSnq8H1Mi5XJKU5ZAw-5zrvwkDtmwiwC1Nnvqpgv9A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


*> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.*
>

It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing the
accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and he's
desperate. Would it really hurt that much to just admit you're wrong?


*I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view.*
>

Then you have a remarkably poor memory! I'll tell you what I remember,
writing several rather detailed posts and you just saying I was wrong with
no specifics. If you think something I said was not sound then please point
it out, I doubt it but maybe it'll even turn out you're right and then I'll
have to change my worldview, but to do that you'll have to pinpoint exactly
where I went wrong.  Next I expect you to say that I made so many errors
that you are unable to pick out a single one.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wbw




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3%2BNoEpxq%2BZ59Yq-uhneSkDOHJEiHtUL_tnMh0q6UekLw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding
 one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*

>>>
>>> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even
>>> know if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
>>> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
>>> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
>>> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
>>> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
>>> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>>>
>>
>> *> I did say mathematical realist. One can believe apples and oranges
>> really exist without being a mathematical realist!*
>>
>
> According to Wikipedia "*mathematical realism is the view that
> mathematical truths are objective and exist independently of the human mind*
> ". I then asked the AI Claude and it said something very similar but
> added that mathematical realists believe *"Mathematical statements are
> objectively true or false. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is always
> true, independent of what any human believes about it*." So you *DO* have
> to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another
> apple in a bowl gives you two apples.
>


That does not follow. Besides, mathematical realism is the belief that
mathematical objects really exist. That might make statements about
mathematical statements being objectively true or false, but that fact is
not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.


*> Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
> since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.*
>

You've made the same accusation before and I gave a detailed response as to
why I think you are incorrect and why Many Worlds give a better
understanding of why the Born rule is what it is than any other quantum
interpretation. You didn't specifically refute anything I said, you just
waved your hands around and said I was wrong.

I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view. As
I remember, you just wittered on about the Born rule being experimentally
true, and therefore not in need of justification. I have pointed out that
such a view is nonsense. You either have to make the Born rule an explicit
additional assumption, or else derive it from something. You have not
derived it from MWI.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLT4APJosjtkFWSkW1iE8jyLhR6ZxZgki-EZbzsM54q5Jg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
>>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>>>
>>
>> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even
>> know if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
>> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
>> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
>> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
>> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
>> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>>
>
> *> I did say mathematical realist. One can believe apples and oranges
> really exist without being a mathematical realist!*
>

According to Wikipedia "*mathematical realism is the view that mathematical
truths are objective and exist independently of the human mind*". I then
asked the AI Claude and it said something very similar but added that
mathematical realists believe *"Mathematical statements are objectively
true or false. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is always true,
independent of what any human believes about it*." So you *DO* have to
be a mathematical
realist to believe that adding one apple to another apple in a bowl gives
you two apples.

*> Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
> since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.*
>

You've made the same accusation before and I gave a detailed response as to
why I think you are incorrect and why Many Worlds give a better
understanding of why the Born rule is what it is than any other quantum
interpretation. You didn't specifically refute anything I said, you just
waved your hands around and said I was wrong.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

siw

-- 
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/CAJPayv3XTgY0x%3Djs464m%2B1TNC0M5meXB-PGOW%2BBo7qR4cXTrOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>>
>
> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know
> if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>

I did say *mathematical* realist. One can believe apples and oranges really
exist without being a mathematical realist!

Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLTXo0kd5Vd7v-u8f45gy%3DfcrfW0gmjHME4Y4gM1xa62Kw%40mail.gmail.com.

The new quantum chip

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
Apparently IBM has hardwired a new error correcting algorithm into its new
quantum chip called "Quantum Low-Density Parity Check" (qLDPC), only 288
physical Qubits are needed (provided the physical error rate is less than
 0.1%) to produce 12 perfect logical cubits; with older error correction
codes many thousands of physical Qubits would have been required. The
difficult part was that for qLDPC to work each physical Qubit had to be
connected to 6 other Qubits, in older quantum chips there was only a
connection with two or three.

IBM releases first-ever 1,000-qubit quantum chip



Unveiling IBM Quantum System Two


  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ins

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Qj5RjxDA%3DKyxomzi3m%2B2qDv6xci1R2uUDiijuG9i4Ug%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: It Could Be a Vast Source of Clean Energy, Buried Deep Underground

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

It Could Be a Vast Source of Clean Energy, Buried Deep Underground

In eastern France, and in other places around the world, deposits of
natural hydrogen promise bountiful power. But questions remain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/business/energy-environment/clean-energy-hydrogen.html?unlocked_article_code=1.DU0.S8_8.Owib8dNqmjtN=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv0chMXAianZJSaL3e%3DMxHVpkiijXJFiO%2BShXL1BxhF%2B-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

IBM's 2 new Quantum Computers

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
Today IBM unveiled 2 new quantum computers, one called "Condor" is the
largest the company has ever made with 1121 Qubits, up from their 433 Qubit
machine that came out last year. The other machine called "Heron" only has
133 Qubits but has an error rate that is 5 times smaller than any the
company has ever made before.


IBM’s 'Condor' quantum computer has more than 1000 qubits


  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nq2

-- 
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/CAJPayv1WhYYwkn7j%2BQbRZUYkXMR14JWhgBvXcv1d_vSayhJj5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-12-04 Thread John Clark 
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>

But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know if
"orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is already
orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an apple isn't
real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two apples in it then
when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born Rule works, if
you're not interested in understanding why it works then you never have to
bother with the Many Worlds idea.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wao

-- 
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/CAJPayv09468hb2%2BryuwCamL46RwMyXXL46HH0dHPi%3DsBxLLGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.