On 8/2/2019 1:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:31 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8/2/2019 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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?
One. It's a unitary evolution of the input state.
We were speaking of computational states. Are you saying there is
only one computation state involved in Shor's algorithm? What causes
the interference necessary to yield the correct answer, if not these
numerous computational states?
The interference is in the measurement which Deutsch would say projects
out onto one of the multiple worlds...the non-unitary step.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhsy-hL7stcv%2BDh82UkOzCk_zeRYcY3JrBn-fEP07-yYg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhsy-hL7stcv%2BDh82UkOzCk_zeRYcY3JrBn-fEP07-yYg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/e15fad2e-52cd-bf85-dffa-4e87015dcab5%40verizon.net.
