On 12/12/2018 11:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:44 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/12/2018 5:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:04 PM Brent Meeker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/12/2018 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2018, at 20:20, Brent Meeker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/11/2018 11:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:53 PM Philip Thrift
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-6,
Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:29 AM Brent Meeker
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/11/2018 12:31 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:05:17 PM
UTC-6, Jason wrote:
No one is refuting the existence of
matter, only the idea that matter is
primary. That is, that matter is not
derivative from something more fundamental.
Jason
I can understand an (immaterial)
computationalism (e.g. *The universal
numbers. From Biology to Physics.* Marchal B
[
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993
]) as providing a purely informational basis
for (thinking of) matter and consciousness,
but then why would *actual matter* need to
come into existence at all? Actual matter
itself would seem to be superfluous.
If actual matter is not needed for
experientiality (consciousness), and actual
matter does no exist at all, then we live in
a type of simulation of pure numericality.
There would be no reason for actual matter to
come into existence.
If it feels like matter and it looks like
matter and obeys the equations of matter how
is it not "actual" matter? Bruno's idea is
that consciousness of matter and it's effects
are all we can know about matter. So if the
"simulation" that is simulating us, also
simulates those conscious thoughts about
matter then that's a "actual" as anything
gets. Remember Bruno is a theologian so all
this "simulation" is in the mind of
God=arithmetic; and arithmetic/God is the
ur-stuff.
It's not just Bruno who reached this conclusion.
from Markus Muller's paper:
In particular, her observations do not
fundamentally supervene on this “physical
universe”; it is merely a useful tool to
predict her future observations. Nonetheless,
this universe will seem perfectly real to her,
since its state is strongly correlated with
her experiences. If the measure µ that is
computed within her computational universe
assigns probability close to one to the
experience of hitting her head against a
brick, then the corresponding experience of
pain will probably render all abstract
insights into the non-fundamental nature of
that brick irrelevant.
Jason
What is the computer that running "her computational
universe"?
The very same that powers the equations that bring life to
our universe as you see it evolve.
What is its power supply?
Power is only required to erase information, and that is
only a concept of the physical laws of this universe.
Even the laws of our universe permit the creation of
computers which require no power to run.
See the bit about reversible computing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
(computations that are reversible require no energy).
And they produce no results since they run both ways. They
are not even computations in the CT sense.
They are computations in the CT sense.
CT computations halt. A program that can just wander back an
forth at random doesn't halt.
A reversible computation can still halt. It doesn't have to be a
never ending circle, it just has to be possible to re-wind back
to the original state, in theory (by not throwing away information).
But the point is that there must be an entropic gradient to define
which way the computation goes if every step is reversible.
Otherwise it doesn't "go" anywhere.
It works the same way any other computer or computation would. There
is no magic to it. The only difference from conventional computers and
conventional logic gates is that it preserves enough information along
the way (during the computation) such that in principal given some Nth
state, you could work backwards to determine what the N-1th state was.
For example, a "CCNOT" gate (or Toffoli gate
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toffoli_gate>) is a universal logic
gate, which takes in three input bits: a, b, c. And outputs "a", "b",
and "c XOR (a AND b)".
Basically it will invert c if both a and b are 1. Otherwise c is not
inverted.
If you set c=0, then your CCNOT gate's output of c can be treated as
"a AND b". Your normal computation may only be interested in the "a
AND b" result from the circuit, and you can ignore the other output
bits for the purposes of your computation, but the distinction for
reversibility is we don't throw out "a" and "b" which would be done in
a conventional AND gate. Having both "a", "b", and the result, allows
us to work backwards to determine what the input bits (a, b, c) were.
Thus no information has been lost during the computation, and because
the CCNOT is universal you can use it to replicate the functionality
of any logic circuit.
I understand the theory. But it is showing that the computation
is*/logically/* reversible. If it is also physically reversible, i.e.
no increase in entropy, then it will not have a direction and no
computation will be accomplished. In practice this avoided by "making a
measurement" at one end where the entropy is increased. But that is not
part of the reversible quantum evolution.
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 [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.
