On 3/23/2012 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences:
/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.

Hi John,

Did you note that nowhere was it mentioned in Bruno's comment that the 2^16 unverses had an upper limit of the time that it would take to perform the implementation! This is the "escape clause" for his claim. What is interesting about this multiple parallel universe idea is that it seems to me that we could make the time and qubit limit of any _one_ "typical universe" could be made arbitrarily small by putting a large quantum computer on a very fast star-ship and travelling at velocities that approach c. Since the Q-computer on the Enterprise would have an arbitrarily long time to implement its "side" of the Qubit's unitary evolution as some from an observer that is watchign the Enterprise on its long range scanners. The neat thing is that for Spock the computation would output its answer in no time at all IF and Only IF it was able to remain coupled to all those other "parallel" universes. This scenario, set on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, seems likely until you look into what acceleration does to quantum entanglement.it is well known that any acceleration spoils entanglement in an interesting way.

I apologize for my wandering off topic but I strange idea occurred to me as I was reading your post...



/ 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 <mailto: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

    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.
    2) Clark, K.B. (2010). Arrhenius-kinetics evidence for quantum
    tunneling in microbial "social" decision rates. Communicative &
    Integtrative Biology, 3(6), 540-544.

    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.


    On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto: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

        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?


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to