From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thurs. Sept. 5, 2002 10:25PM
I don't know whether Hal Finney is right or wrong after reading pages 5-8 of
Yurtsever, since Yurtsever writes like David Deutsch and Julian Brown and so
many other members of the quantum entanglement school - no matter how many
words they put in, they always leave out interconnecting logic and physics.
Most mathematical psychology models have in the past been of this type,
believe it or not, which is probably why mathematical psychology is today
one of the most backward fields. I think that, despite NASA's alleged use
of chaos avoidance in some satellite or missile, chaos theory is more or
less in the same boat.
I spent some time on an internet forum discussing David Deutsch's work some
time ago, and neither Deutsch nor his friends had the faintest idea what I
was talking about, and the feeling is mutual. I used to think that
misunderstandings between scientists (including mathematicians) are not
usually deliberate, but I am beginning to even question that in reference to
quantum entanglement because such dogmatism and intolerance and lack of
spelling out steps characterizes the field. And it's OK with some people,
because they've been doing that as a way of life with less complicated stuff
and getting away with it!
If nothing else, entanglement as a continuous or connected process/event
can't be as easily faked or double-talked as entanglement as a bunch of
discrete steps. Unless somebody has some comments to make about my work,
much of which is at http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum, I'll go back to
the forum where I can continue my continuous are piecewise continuous
approach. Actually, they can reach me at [EMAIL PROTECTED],. if they have
any useful comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Schmidhuber II implies FTL communications
> Wei writes:
> > I just found a paper which shows that if apparent quantum randomness has
> > low algorithmic complexity (as Schmidhuber II predicts), then FTL
> > communications is possible.
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806059
> This was an interesting paper but unfortunately the key point seemed
> to pass by without proof. On page 5, the proposal is to use entangled
> particles to try to send a signal by measuring at one end in a sequence
> of different bases which are chosen by an algorithmically incompressible
> mechanism. The assumption is that this will result in an algorithmically
> incompressible set of results at both ends, in contrast to the state
> where stable measurements are done, which we assume for the purpose of
> the paper produces algorithmically compressible results.
> The author writes: "This process of scrambling with the random template T
> guarantees that Bob's modified N-bit long string of quantum measurements
> is almost surely p-incompressible..., and that Alice's corresponding
> string (which is now different from Bob's) is also (almost surely)
> It's not clear to me that this follows. Why couldn't Bob's measurement
> results, when using a randomly chosen set of bases, still have a
> compressible structure? And why couldn't Alice's?
> Also, does this result depend on the choice of an unbalanced system
> with alpha and beta different from 1/2? This short description of
> the signalling process doesn't seem to refer explicitly to special
> alpha/beta values.
> If not, could the procedure be as simple as choosing to measure in
> the X vs + bases, as is often done in quantum crypto protocols? If we
> choose between X and + using an algorithmically incompressible method,
> will that guarantee that the measured values are also incompressible?
> Hal Finney