----- Original Message -----
From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory
> There go 7 cents out of my 60!...
> The case indeed is that if you build a quantum computer by emulating
> a Turing-Universal Machine you are a priori circunscribing its own
> class of algorithms. That is only natural if that is the largest class of
> computable problems you think are worthwhile considering. But it
> isn't necessarily the only one. This approach surfaces here and there
> in the literature. See for example:
Nice paper! I will be adding this one to my homework. Thank you! What we
need is a good general definition of what exactly is a QM computation that
we can all agree on.
> Another point worth making is that it seems unlikely that the recourse
> to the infinite superposability of quantum states is going to be of any
> help in this circunstance. It may be more profitable to look to
> entanglement (which incidentaly is the trully novelty that QC brings
> to the realm of computation) as the road to a trans-Turing class of
Entanglement is somewhat involved. See this paper:
> As to your reference to Penrose, Ben, I should probably add that
> his much maligned ideas concerning the possibility of using Quantum
> Gravity as a basis for understanding the psychology of mathematical
> invention are perhaps worth a second look now that we are learning a
> good deal more about quantum information in Black Holes etc...
I am a deep admirer of Penrose. It was his ideas that awoke me to QM
comp as a possible way of modeling the psyche.