Dear Stephen,
You wrote: > I followed the UDA link and read the post and fell flat on my face when >I read the term "classical teleportation". I would like to know what is the >theoretical basis of a belief that "classical teleportation" is even >possible? Classical information, in the "physical" traditionnal sense has always been considered as possible. Classical information is teleported at evry moment through phones, nets, TV-channel, etc. In Science-Fiction book, it has often been called simply "teleportation". Only with the advent of "quantum teleportation" sometimes I feel the need to add "classical" for preventing possible confusion. >I can accept TM emulability for the sake of the argument, but the >notion of classical teleportation is something that is equivalent to >perpetual motion machines in my thinking. I don't understand. If someone is Turing-emulable at level L, and if by chance he/she bet on that level for comp practice, then he/she can send his/her digital description made at that level through any classical information channel. Of course if the level is very low, for example if there is a need to encode the quantum state of the whole cosmos, then it is not possible to do it in practice. But the reasoning still follows. So if you accept Turing-emulablity at a level (even if only for the sake of the argument), then I don't see how you could deny the possibility of classical teleportation at that level (even if only for the sake of the argument). >PS. How far have you considered Chu transforms? Still not very far. Thanks for pointing me to Vaughan Pratt paper btw. The paper proves also that it is possible to be a logician and at the same time be aware of the mind-body problem (reconforting idea). But Pratt's conception of mind is to narrow for my purpose. Nor can I take his dualism as an ontological dualism, so his stuff is no really stuff, and his approach is best seen as a sort of still purely mathematical monisme, even if his use of the Chu transform give a nice dualist panorama. We will see. Today, among the logicians, I would say the Blute-Girard linear functors seems more rich, respectively to the goal of finding intermediate structures between Z1* (the comp physics) and Quantum Mechanics. Best Regards, Bruno
