On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2020 3:39 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Of course any computation is going to be finite or involve a finite number > of bits. This happens as well with quantum computers, but there is one > difference. Two states can be prepared and entangled so they have a > continuum of probabilities depending upon measurement angle. This is what > separates QM from classical mechanics. > > > I've wondered about this. Of course a lot variables in the theory are > continua; not just angle but also position. Yet none of those can be > measured to arbitrary precision. And the more precisely one is, the less > precisely it's conjugate can be...which is what separate QM from classical > mechanics. Holevo's theorem limits what we can know about a state. > > Brent > > > I was going to comment here but just to re-quote Max Tegmark's dictum:
Our challenge as physicists is to discover the infinity-free equations describing it—the true laws of physics. It seems to always be needed to restate to physicists *as Vic Stenger did): Just because a *mathematical theory* someone came up with to model physical stuff has property X doesn't mean that the *physical stuff* has property X. @philipthrift -- 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/333d163e-ee12-428f-986d-abbff87836a3o%40googlegroups.com.
