On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp, only in the 1p sense as you get a free random oracle as well as always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but it's not false in the 3p view...


Yes. Comp makes physics a first person plural reality, and a priori we might be able to exploit the first plural indeterminacy to compute more function, like we know already that we have more "processes", like that free random oracle. The empirical fact that quantum computer does not violate CT can make us doubt about this.

I don't think that is so clear. Nielsen has written some papers on computations in QM that are not Turing emulable, essentially relying on the fact that QM uses real numbers. He suggests that QM should be restricted to avoid this kind of hypercomputation by dropping the assumption that all unitary operators are allowed.

Brent

Hi Brent,

Could we achieve the same thing by restricting the vector (Hilbert) space of linear functionals to a finite (but very large) field? Another possibility is that there is a local preference of basis for a given set of homomorphisms between the Hilbert spaces of a given pair of interacting quantum systems. Here is a nice video lecture on the math of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkU1UdS4Dps&feature=related

Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to