On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and >> similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve >> the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must >> mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units >> as I have proposed). >> >> >> *Computational solution to quantum foundational problems* >> *Arkady Bolotin* >> *(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, >> v6))* >> >> * This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum >> linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of >> macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem >> in quantum theory referred to as the "measurement problem", actually has a >> computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, >> which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every >> physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many >> constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of >> computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the >> assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, >> which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, >> accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential >> Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between >> a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called >> the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that >> deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap >> in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of >> macroscopic objects from their microstates.* >> >> *Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science >> International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference* >> *Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)* >> *Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157* >> *Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]* >> * (or arXiv:1403.7686v6 [quant-ph] for this version)* >> >> I may have misinterpreted this paper (and god knows I don't have much > time to look at them in depth) but the impression I got was that some > computations are "too hard for nature to perform in time" and this time > limit creates the Heisenberg cut. Is that a fair summary, or have I messed > up again? > > That's what I took it to say. > > Interesting. I would think (and I realise that what I think isn't exactly an infallible guide to what nature is likely to do) that whatever nature does computationally, we would experience the results at the relevant speed - so if in platonia or whevever it takes a trillion years to calcaulate one second of universe-time, we'd just experience the one second. I wouldn't expect there to be a sort of two speed system.
(But then I drive an automatic... :-) -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
