Hi John,

On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:05, John Mikes wrote:

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).

Parallel world means only quantum superposition. It emphasizes the fact that superposition is contagious through interaction.



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.

Why humans? Why not mammals, or machines, or divine entities? Humans are not the only one entities suffering from limitations.



It is beyond our capabilities to even imagine (more sophisticated) ways of thinking, which does not mean an exclusion of such.

But this is too vague. It seems to apply to all theories.



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).

But may be it is a human limitation to believe that their logic is human. By the way we define machine, they are machine when viewed by human or by non-human, so with comp we can grasp better the human limitations by studying the machine's limitations.




         "- we have to take our theories seriously, -"
Not in my agnosticism.

You know it is hard to be more agnostic than me :)
But it is because I am agnostic that I remind that theories are temporary belief, and that we can progress only by taking them seriously (which does NOT mean true!!!), so we can at least one day change our mind on them.



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.

What do you mean by "established science"? I don't believe that make sense. Actually I don't believe in "Science", only in "scientific attitude", which, basically is only "modesty".


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.

I don't see the problem with the word "theory", but you can call that a "narrative" if you prefer. You are right that the popular media confuse "theory" and knowledge, but for me it is a reason to use the right word in the correct way. If not, it is like with the religious notion, you encourage the use of the word by those who missed the idea. I think.

Bruno


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- l...@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- l...@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.

Reply via email to