Bruno: thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences:

## Advertising

*2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the quantum superposition** - used in Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers*. I would not limit the numbers and fix the quality of future development. Nor do I take it for granted that today's logic in math (arithmetics) will hold. * I have few doubts that quantum computers will appear, but I am quite uncertain if it is for this century of for the next millennium *. Ihave more faith in 'the new': maybe that will be something better than today's uncertainty-riding "quantum" idea. John M On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote: > > Brent and Bruno: > you both have statements in this endless discussion about processing ideas > of quantum computers. > I would be happy to read about ONE that works, not a s a potentiality, but > as a real tool, the function of which is understood and APPLIED. (Here, on > Earth). > > > It is an *immense* technical challenge. Up to now, a quantum circuit has > only succeeded in showing that 15 is equal to 3*5, which might seems > ridiculous for todays applied computing domains, but which is still an > extraordinary technical prowess as it involves handling of the 2^16 > parallel universes needed to implement the quantum superposition used in > Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers. > > The amazing thing is that all the arguments of unfeasibility of quantum > computers have been overcome by quantum software, like the quantum error > corrections, and the topological fault tolerant quantum machinery. > > I have few doubts that quantum computers will appear, but I am quite > uncertain if it is for this century of for the next millennium. But bigger > quantum circuits will emerge this century, and quantum cryptographic > technic might already exist, but that's a military secret, and a banker > secret :). > > There is also some prospect to discover quantum machinery operating in > nature. I read some times ago, that a super-heavy object has been > discovered which structure seemed to have to be unstable for much > physicists and some have elaborated models in which quarks are exploiting a > quantum-computational game to attain stability. > > And then, to make happy Stephen, the "not very plausible yet not entirely > excluded despite what Tegmark argues" possibility that life exploits > quantum algorithm. See for example the two following papers referred to in > my today's mail: > > 1) Clark, K.B. (2010). Bose-Einstein condensates form in heuristics > learned by ciliates deciding to signal 'social' commitments. BioSystems, > 99(3), 167-178. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883726 > > 2) Clark, K.B. (2010). Arrhenius-kinetics evidence for quantum tunneling > in microbial "social" decision rates. Communicative & Integtrative Biology, > 3(6), 540-544. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cib/article/12842 > > I am skeptical to be franc. Not too much time to dig on this for now. The > second is freely available. if someone want to comment on it, please do. > > Bruno > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 3/12/2012 7:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> On 3/12/2012 10:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 3/11/2012 11:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> An Evil Wizard could pop into my vicinity and banish me to the Nether >> plane! A "magical act", if real and just part of a story, is an event that >> violates some conservation law. I don't see what else would constitute >> magic... My point is that Harry Potterisms would introduce cul-de-sacs that >> would totally screw up the statistics and measures, so they have to be >> banished. >> >> >> Because otherwise things would be screwed up? >> >> Chain-wise consistency and concurrency rules would prevent these >> pathologies, but to get them we have to consider multiple and disjoint >> observers and not just "shared" 1p as such implicitly assume an absolute >> frame of reference. Basically we need both conservation laws and general >> covariance. Do we obtain that naturally from COMP? That's an open question. >> >> >> You seem to be begging the question: We need regularity, otherwise things >> wouldn't be regular. >> >> >> No, you are dodging the real question: How is the measure defined? >> >> >> The obvious way is that all non-self-contradictory events are equally >> likely. But that's hypothesized, not defined. I'm not sure why you are >> asking how it's defined. The usual definition is an assignment of a number >> in [0,1] to every member of a Borel set such that they satisfies >> Kolmogorov's axioms. >> >> >> If it is imposed by fiat, say so and defend the claim. Why is it so hard >> to get you to consider multiple observers and consider the question as to >> how exactly do they interact? Al of the discussion that I have seen so far >> considers a single observer and abstractions about other people. The most I >> am getting is the word "plurality". Is this difficult? Really? >> >> >> It's difficult because people are trying to explain 'other people' and >> taking only their own consciousness as given. If you're going to assume >> other people, why not assume physics too? >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.