On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/2/2019 12:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/2/2019 10:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Quantum computers work by interference of quits, and such interference >>>>> can only take place in one world -- different worlds are orthogonal. The >>>>> fact that one can analyse a quantum computer in a particular basis which >>>>> can be represented as a series of parallel computations does not mean that >>>>> this is actually what happens. Heuristic constructs seldom correspond to >>>>> reality. >>>>> >>>> >>>> None of this comes anywhere close to addressing my question. >>>> >>> >>> Well, you have either not understood the question, or my answer to it. >>> >> >> I asked where those 10^1000 intermediate computation states are realized, >> and your reply was a basic description of how quantum computers use qubits >> and interference. You said this all takes place in one world, but the >> total information content and computational capacity of the observable >> universe about 800 orders of magnitude less than 10^1000. >> >> You then added a sentence that suggested the intermediate computational >> states perhaps don't exist, but then how does the correct answer get into >> the output bits when we read it? >> >> David Deutsch said he has never seen a sensible answer to the question of >> how quantum computers work from the context of any single-universe >> interpretation. Do you think your answer would satisfy him? >> >> >> All those "intermediate computation states" are so "numerous" because the >> state is being expressed as a superposition of qubit basis states. From >> another viewpoint the state is just a single ray in Hilbert space that >> happens to not be orthogonal to any of those bases >> > > So in your view, are they real? > > > What "they"? There's only a single state. It's like saying there are > infinitely many tones in a square wave...just because you represented it as > a Fourier series. The are 2^1e4 potential measurement results, depending > on what you choose to measure...but that's true in the classical case too. > Do you agree the final states you measured were caused by the intermediate states of the computation? How many intermediate states of the computation are there? Jason -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUghishR3aNO%2BvGKtfbm5zsqQB-t0W5-ZvPY0Jpdh344xg%40mail.gmail.com.
