On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
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.
Not at all. You can reason validly in *all* domains. Only in the hot
domain, people forgets logic and use emotion instead.
Arithmetic is far beyond "logic". That's a consequence of
incompleteness. We cannot capture the whole arithmetical truth in one
formal system. We are warned for an infinity of surprises. But we can
still make assumption and reason from there. This is true for any
domain.
Yet, not all valid logic propositions are related to the experienced
world.
You are a bit imprecise. The purely logical propositions (intuitionist
or classical) are related to you trivially, I would say. You are using
them all the time, when doing shopping, work, driving a car, etc. At
some level they are true *about* you.
But then pure logic alone is not rich. We always needs axioms, to talk
about something, like strings, numbers, combinators, dreaming
machines, or gods, goddesses and whatever.
In my view, if we remove empirical evidences from consideration then
we land in a metaphysical realm.
It when we assume a reality beyond the empirical evidence, that we do
theology or metaphysics.
Logical thought, which does not mean purely logical thought, are a
mean to reason in the most independent way of ontological commitment
(be it matter, gods, numbers, or whatever. Here rigor is the key of
free thought. The validity of a reasoning guarantied its independence
from interpretations. That happens with first order logic, and that's
why I study machine's talking first order predicate calculus. But they
talk of many things.
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 ...
Too much difficult.
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.
That bet is far too vague for me. Define "abnormalities".
I bet that in 2029, they will not been able to judge the case, and
will continue to disagree.
I can bet that full simulation of higher mammals brain, ---glial,
neuronal cells + some bacteries, at the molecular level, close to the
Heisenberg uncertainty level,--- will be done this or the next century.
Bruno
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
