Bruno, I did not branch out into the 1st line of my 1st quote of your
sentence.
Not that 2^16 is 'a' number, but "parallel" gives the idea of identicity
(at least in main qualia) which are (both) human talk. (Of course that's
what we can do).
I am glad that you agreed with my (generalized!) remark.
Now: to your question:
 *          - Which logics? Classical logic? -*
Any one you may call 'logic(s?)' in today's HUMAN thinking.* *It is beyond
our capabilities to even imagine (more sophisticated) ways of thinking,
which does not mean an exclusion of such. I did not visualize a "change" in
logic, simply assumed the possibility of "thinking differently (not
necessarily using OUR math terms). (Cf: Cohen-Stewart's "Zarathustrans" - a
fictional reference).

         "*- we have to take our theories seriously, -"*
Not in my agnosticism. In conventional sciences a 'theory' is taken
seriously upon assumptions based on other (accepted?) theories
(calculations?). To let your ideas wander and look for yes/no consequences
(within today's knowledge) is a game of creativity, not established
science. This is how I ended up with many of my patents. For the same
reason do I NOT call my 'Plenitude-story' of generating universes a *
NARRATIVE*, not a theory.

JohnM


On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
>  On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:34, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Bruno:
> 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.
>
>
> Me neither.
>
>
>  Nor do I take it for granted that today's logic in math (arithmetics)
> will hold.
>
>
> Which logics? Classical logic?
> In which logic will you describe the change of logics.
> Not sure that I can give meaning to your sentence here, John. You seem to
> believe in some absolute logic to make sense of change in logic.
>
>
>
>
> *    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.
>
>
> We can only *assume* theories, and then we can hope we will see them to be
> refuted. That's how we learn. But this means we have to take our theories
> seriously, which does not mean "true".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>  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.

Reply via email to