On 19.03.2013 16:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as good as a quantum computer for finding
a needle in a haystack.
Could you show me a quantum computer that can do that? I guess
that it exist only in dreams of theoreticians (on in that part
of Platonia that the humankind cannot access).
That's an argument of the kind "only bird can fly". I was
alluding to a well now ability of QC. And to pretend that a
brain/mind can do quantum computing would endow a brain/mind with
this abilities.
Grover L.K. Qunatum Mechanics helps in searching for a needle in
an haystack. Physical Review Letters, 78: 325-328, 1997a.
Quant-phys/9605043.
The fact that QC does not yet exist does not invalidate the
argument.
In my view, provided that there is no experimental proof, we remain
in a realm of a metaphysical discussion. Is this what you mean by
the argument?
I think that you are confusing theoretical and metaphysical. I would
avoid the term "experimental proof" as this does not make sense with
the notion of proof most commonly referred in this list (valid
theoretical deduction)
I would say that a valid theoretical deduction concerns logic only. Yet,
not all valid logic propositions are related to the experienced world.
In my view, if we remove empirical evidences from consideration then we
land in a metaphysical realm.
Also, there are plenty of experimental confirmations of quantum
computations. What does not yet exist is a general purpose quantum
computer, but the reason why are obvious: it *is* technically
challenging. Yet, since the work on quantum error correction, no one
doubt in the field that quantum computer will appear. May be in ten
years, may be in 100 years. I have already assisted to quite
impressive experience is quantum data encryption and recovery. The
number 15 has already be factorized through a quantum algorithm
(Shor), etc.
I am personally not impressed by the logic that this will be made some
time in the future. To this end, a statement in a form of a wager would
be more meaningful. For example, I bet that in ten years ...
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis
Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/genomewager.html
Make your bet. In such a form this is closer to real science, that is,
to a predictive statement.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
