On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2018, at 20:01, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>
>> In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation
>> that the system is in both states simultaneously before measurement, versus
>> the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in before
>> measurement? Is the latter interpretation equivalent to Einstein Realism?
>> And if so, is this the interpretation allegedly falsified by Bell
>> experiments? AG
>>
>
>
> Interpretations of quantum computing (QC) follow interpretations of
> quantum mechanics (QM) itself.
>
> Here's two:
>
> 1. *An introduction to many worlds in quantum computation*
> - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2504.pdf
>
> 2. *The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum computing*
> - https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607151.pdf
>
>
>
> Quite interesting paper. I wish I had more time to meditate on this, but
> I’m rather busy up to the end of November.
>
>
>
>
> If one is familiar with these two interpretations in QM,
>
>
> I would call them different formulations.
>
> Interpretation remains difficult, but as far as I grasp it, it support the
> 0 world but many points-of-view/"dreams” interpretation of (universal)
> truth. (The truth on all “Turing machines”, or all “combinators").
>
>
>
> one can at least follow how they would work in a semantics for QC.
>
> As far as I know it's a matter of personal preference which one you might
> like (but I wouldn't choose door #1!).
>
>
>
> The problem of the “many-world” is that a “world” is not an easy concept
> that we could take for granted. Relative state is better, but sum on
> histories can be even better.
>
> The difficulty (when we assume mechanism) is in justifying the linearity
> at the bottom for the "measure one” of the observable. It has become a
> mathematical problem, just to see if the arithmetical observable (which are
> well defined through the logics of self-reference) are linear enough.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
For me, I take the Feynman Path + Backward Causation
interpretation/formulation "realistically", hence:
The Reflective Path Integral w/ Stochastic Concurrent Prolog
and
The WPU (the Wheeler Processing Unit) and the Wheeler-Feynman (or
Wheeler-Feynman-vonNeumann) computer.
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/cp-stochastic-concurrent-prolog/
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/05/05/a-cp-formulation-of-the-path-integral/
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/retrosignaling-in-the-quantum-substrate/
- pt
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
