On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based >>>> on information that can be quantum erased. >>>> >>> You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits. >>> >>> Can you prove that? How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive at a >>> definite decision? >>> >> >> Prove? No. But I think I can justify it: >> >> 1. Quantum computers are Turing equivalent, they can compute anything a >> classical computer can. >> >> 2. Human brains are believed to operate according to physical laws, all >> known of which are computable. >> >> 3. Humans are conscious. >> >> 4. By any of: Chalmers's principle of "Organizational invariance", or >> "multiple realizability", or the "Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle", or >> the "computational theory of mind", a functionally equivalent computation >> to that of a conscious human brain will be equivalently conscious to that >> brain. >> >> 5. Quantum computers are reversible. >> >> By 1 & 2, a quantum computer can simulate a human brain. By 3 & 4, such >> an emulation will be conscious. By 5 any computation performed by a quantum >> computer can be quantum erased by reversing the circuit back to its >> starting state. >> >> It reaches a definite decision by virtue of completing its processing >> before ultimately being reversed. This prevents an outside observer from >> learning the decision, but it's made nonetheless during the course of the >> processing. >> > > How do you know that it has reached a definite decision? Without having it > print out some irreversible record? If it prints out a (pseudo-)classical > record, the initial state is not recoverable. > > Bruce > By either: 1. Analyzing the circuit 2. Having the circuit do something useful and verifiable (as in my factoring example) 3. Having the circuit output that it did observe a definite value but without reporting which value it observed (as in Deutsch's original example) 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/CAFxXSLTjgefz%2Bgs1zMyOtdKVzAeFVJ55Ffoskw3z%3DBMT7pNOFw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTjgefz%2Bgs1zMyOtdKVzAeFVJ55Ffoskw3z%3DBMT7pNOFw%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/CA%2BBCJUhvMpo1TS9wOLXFQbc65-QHMfq624H6XEUFr4NX65cMYw%40mail.gmail.com.
