Hi Magnus, welcome back ... I'm a taker. I've had Quantum Computing in my blog for several years now, and totally agree the fundamental understanding of information processing is very close to our metaphysical interests here. (My 2005 conference paper referred to it too.)
The stuff that's exciting me most is here. http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/bcs_cmg.htm Because these guys (like David Deutsch) have noticed the fundamental significance, as well as the processing power potential. The relationships to the Anthropic Principle(s) and the re-writing of earlier quantum mechanics laws are all there, but the maths is too hard for the layman like me. If you search for Quantum Computing, Quantum Information and Qubits on my blog, you'll find many links. www.psybertron.org Looking forward to further correspondence on this. For the moment, day job calls. Ian On 2/13/07, Magnus Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there > > I'd better start by reintroducing myself. I'm Magnus Berg from Sweden and has > been lurking here for so long that I guess most of you here have never seen me > post. On the other hand, I recognize many of the current posters so I guess > some > of you will remember me. > > Anyway, as some of you might remember, I'm a computer guy and I just saw that > a > new quantum computer is being demoed today. I'm afraid I was unable to attend > the demo physically, but their site is very interesting, and pretty MoQ:ish > actually. > > Just read this (from http://www.dwavesys.com/index.php?page=quantum-computing) > (my *emphasis*) > > "We now know that Turing was only partially correct. Not all computers are > equivalent. His work was based on an assumption — that computation and > information were abstract entities, divorced from the rules of physics > governing > the behavior of the computer itself. > > One of the most important developments in modern science is the realization > that > information (and computation) can never exist in the abstract. *Information is > always tied to the physical stuff upon which it is written.* What is possible > to > compute is completely determined by the rules of physics. > > Turing's work, and conventional computer science, are only valid if a computer > obeys the rules of Newtonian physics — the set of rules that apply to large > and > hot things, like baseballs and humans. If elements of a computer behave > according to different rules, such as the rules of QM, this assumption fails > and > many very interesting possibilities emerge." > > > When quantum computers become more common, I think they will start provoking > philosophical questions in much the same lines we're doing here. > > Any takers? > > Magnus > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
