On 6/25/2014 4:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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... :-)
Yeah, it seems to assume a computational time which is a limited resource and is related
to the physical time as measured by fields and particle motion.
Brent
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
