On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable.

Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.

If the copy is not exact then functional equivalence is not exact either and this is fatal for the model.

Then you should mourn the Stephen P. King of and hour ago. He's been fatally changed.

Never, I am not the impermanent image on the world stage. I am the fire that casts the images.

This is not qubits that are involved... The point here is that this comp model assume that Reality is, at is ground level, classical.

It doesn't assume that. A fully quantum computation can be performed on a classical, i.e. Turing, computer. Bruno would just say it just takes a lower level of substitution.

Yes, a classical computer can emulate a finite quantum computation given sufficient resources. This is not the same thing as the EPR effect that I am considering. The idea that I am considering is more like this:

Consider the visible physical universe. We know from observation that not only is it open on one end and that it's expansion is accelerating. People want to put this off on some "Dark Energy". I think that it is something else, driving it. Consider a classical computer that needs to emulate a quantum computation. It has to have even increasing resources to keep up with the QC if the QC is modeling an expanding universe. It we take Bruno's AR literally, where are these resources coming from?

They are computations. They exist in Platonia. He's trying to explain matter, so he can't very well assume material resources. The world is made out of arithmetic, an infinite resource.

Sure, but the explanation of the idea requires matter to be communicated. A slight oversight perhaps.

Let's turn the tables and make Reality Quantum in its essence. The classical computation may just be something that the QC is running.

There's not difference as computations.

You are correct but only in the absence of considerations of inputs and outputs and their concurrency. Abstract theory leaves out the obvious, but when it pretends to toss out the obvious, that is going to far.

What is most interesting is that the QC can run an arbitrary number of classical computations, all at the same time. The CC can only barely compute the emulation of a single QC.

You are talking about QC and CC as though they were material computers with finite resources. Once you've assumed material resources you've lost any non-circular possibility of explaining them.

No, I am pointing out that real computations require real resources. Only when we ignore this fact we can get away with floating castles in midair.

What if we have an infinite and eternal QC running infinitely many finite CCs and each of these CC's is trying to emulate a single QC. Map this idea out and look at the nice self-referential loop that this defines!

You're confused.

    Maybe. I can handle being wrong. I learn from mistakes.





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