On 7/7/2021 2:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/6/2021 6:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
But the question is whether such a circuit is possible.
Do you disagree with any of the five premises I defined above? If not
do you see a flaw in my reasoning or conclusions? If not, then why
shouldn't such a circuit be possible?
This what I find dubious: /"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." / First, I doubt that
it both reach a definite decision and have that quantum erasable.
Second, you've made "decision" something internal. Intelligence
requires acting in the world.
2. Having the circuit do something useful and verifiable (as in
my factoring example)
How would you know that had a causal connection to the quantum
erasable knowledge?
This is why I had the information pass through the "AI function"
before being used in Shor's algorithm. That way there was a causal
connection with the result that would be communicated to the outside
world.
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)
Again, how do you know such a circuit is possible? Most quantum
computations only produce probable answers in a decohered readout.
Ignoring the AI aspect this is a simple and non probabilistic circuit:
1. Initialize qubit A to 0
2. Initialize qubit B to 0
3. Put qubit A into superposition of (0 and 1) via Hadamard gate
4. Apply Controlled NOT gate to (A, B) using A as the control bit to
read/copy the bit value of A to the state of B. (B now has a definite
value of 1 OR it has a definite value of 0)
5. Apply Pauli-X (NOT gate) to (B) to flip the bit value of B (it is
now opposite of A).
6. Apply Controlled NOT gate to (A, B), to have the effect of
computing (A XOR B) and storing the result in B. If A was measured in
step 4 as 0, B will now be 1. Otherwise, if A was measured in step 4
to be 1, B will now be 1. We now have evidence in qubit B that A was
measured to be a 1 or a 0, but no longer have the which way
information in B.
8. Invert the Hadamard gate applied to A to restore it to 0.
9. Read the qubits, while initialized to A = 0, B = 0, you will now
find A = 0, B = 1.
I don't see that 6 is a measurement of anything. It's just creating a
contradiction as way of setting B=1 regardless of the value of A.
Brent
--
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/a2f6c38f-f96a-e785-0f91-340076c31b91%40verizon.net.
