> On 5 Aug 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:52 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 7:33 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > On 8/2/2019 5:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: > > Wherever it happens, it's one world. Worlds are things things that are > orthogonal on to one another so that's why they're separate. I don't know > what Deutsch believes. > >>> In any case, you have still managed to avoid the question of the reality of >>> the 10^1000 intermediate computational states. I won't press for an answer >>> if you don't have one. >> >> I already gave the answer. There is only one intermediate state. It just >> happens to have lots of components in the basis you used to express it. >> >> And each of those components represents a trace of a computation performed >> on one of the many possible values of the input qubits, do they not? > > That's one way of representing them. Just as citing the Fourier components > of a firecracker going off shows the many components of the sound. > > That would be a convincing counterpoint, except here this "way of looking at > the many components" performs a computation that would not otherwise be > possible if all the atoms of the universe were mustered to perform the > computation. > > The fact is that it is possible. The 2^n dimensions of the Hilbert space for > n qbits is ample space for the computations. The trouble with looking to > parallel worlds to do the computations is that there are an uncountable > infinity of possible bases for the Hilbert space. What picks out just one > base to represent all these parallel worlds? That is the real problem. You > are ignoring the basis problem, just as Deutsch does. You naively assume that > the computational base that you used to set up you quantum computer in the > first instance is the only possible basis in which to view it. If you take > the view that the single ray in Hilbert space represents all that is possible > to know about the QC, and that computations are nothing more than rotations > of this state ray in the space, then all these silly notions of parallel > worlds evaporate.
But then the interference between different branch of the universal ray, whatever base is used to describe it, will disappear. The notion of world is fuzzy. I prefer to use the notion of relative state, and the local base describing your brain is pick out by your consciousness, but is no more real or less real than any other relative state in which consciousness can be supported by a quasi-classical computation. Now, this use mechanism, and this makes necessary to justify the wave or the “physical” apparent winning (locally) universal number from all computations in arithmetic. (Well, you, Bruce, does not need to do that, as you do not assume Mechanism). Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > 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/CAFxXSLRek5q3ttrmNT3rNO0qwq7Mo4xpUun5ddOo5VBg%2B6FaYQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRek5q3ttrmNT3rNO0qwq7Mo4xpUun5ddOo5VBg%2B6FaYQ%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/2F8AD040-EE4C-487C-8334-644398083CBA%40ulb.ac.be.
