On 18 August 2014 11:49, spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> It got pretty heated when Teg questioned Hameroff back in the day. OK, I didn't know that. > Teg was correct in an absolute sense that its far to warm inside the skull > to.present a quantum computation. But a quantum computation as a result of > a quantum field effect seems to be a different story. How a quant field > relates to an actual quantum computer is apparently different. Yet > biologists for thqt last decade, have increasingly observed quant processes > occuring in, for example, plants. This is where teggers, was too > pessimistic, since he was looking for cold superconductivity, as a > necessity for quantum computation, but quantum fields are related, but, > different then qc. A bigger question I have is can we compute using quant > field effect, or, more weirldly, do quantum fields compute, naturally, > automatically? > > Yeah, I was thinking of photosynthesis and suchlike (that's why I heavily qualified my comment with remarks about "stuff we haven't discovered yet".) -- 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.
