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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected]
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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-
[email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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-
[email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
