----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Mallah" <jackmal...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS.
-- On Mon, 1/25/10, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
Does not the mutual interfearence between the "copies" hace something to
do with a QM systems ability to compute exponensially more than a
classical system? If so, then reducing the number or density of copies
would lead to an attenuation in the computational power of the associated
system. That is clearly not a good thing!
In answer to your question, the first thing I must point out is that there
is no evidence that the human brain can perform any quantum computing, and
good reasons to think it can't - it's hard to isolate qbits from the
Also, even for a quantum computer, by 'copy' I don't think we just mean
other parts of the wavefunction; we mean systems that perform the same
computation. So in any case, if it's really 'copies' that we are reducing,
and not limiting it in some other way, by definition there would be no
change in the type or output of computation. However, the number of
implementations would be reduced.
An interesting question is whether conscious quantum computers would tend to
observe the Born Rule as we do. I think they would, but it's not something
that can be tested experimentally by us, because the only thing we would
test is that our own Born Rule predicts what replies from them we tend to
recieve. In most of our worlds they would agree that they see the Born
Rule, but we'd have no way to test if that's true in most of their own
Forget for now whether or not the brain can perform quantum computing,
my question would still obtain in the context of the fact (at least as D.
Deutsch explains in his book) that the universe is at its core quantum
mechanical. I was considering the two slit experiment and wondering if the
numer of possible paths where reduced there would be a related decrease in
the computational power of the system. My reasoning follows from my
understanding of what Feynman pointed out: "that a classical Turing machine
would presumably experience an exponential slowdown when simulating quantum
phenomena, while his hypothetical universal quantum simulator would not."
PS: I still would like to understand how the notion of measure or density
Perhaps you could ask a more specific question. Measure I thought I
explained in the paper. By 'density' I'm not sure what you mean here.
Which paper is that?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at