Quantum Computing in Silicon Hits 99% ​accuracy allowing quantum error correction

of. With accuracy this high it becomes feasible to use quantum error correction algorithms, and if you could do that then you can scale up small quantum computers indefinitely. This is a news article about it: Major Breakthrough As Quantum Computing in Silicon Hits 99% Accuracy <https://scitechdaily.com/ma

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:25:59 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir > ha > scritto: > > Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in > mind. > > “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives > but *all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir ha scritto: Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in mind. “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just

Re: Page time and quantum error correction codes

The firewall is a bit of an ad hoc fix, but if the Hamming distance expands beyond the limits of a QECC it means either the quantum code is not decipherable or to prevent that the idea is then the equivalence principle fails. In effect the singularity appears on the exterior at the horizon.

Re: Page time and quantum error correction codes

I read it.  What I wonder is why failure of the equivalence principle implies a "fire wall"?  Does that mean a high-temperature?  I can imagine lots of ways the equivalence principle could fail. Brent On 12/29/2017 1:36 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: I am curious whether anybody looked at this.

Re: Page time and quantum error correction codes

I am curious whether anybody looked at this. I got more response from a post I sent to this list by accident. LC On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 7:17:13 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I answered an outstanding question on the physics stack exchange on page > time and information

Page time and quantum error correction codes

I answered an outstanding question on the physics stack exchange on page time and information scrambling . Below are the first three paragraphs of the answer. The Page time comes about

Re: A correction

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​> ​ > I bet more people know who Molly Bloom is than could explain what a quark > is. > ​I'll take that bet! ​ ​They ​may not be able to r enormalized ​the ​ quark-antiquark Hamiltonian ​ but they've heard the word before,

Re: Correction to MWI post

)? Let us move slowly. Nothing is urgent. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 10:14 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 29 Jan 2017, at 16:28, sp

Re: Correction to MWI post

be choosers. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 10:14 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 29 Jan 2017, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: So, just

Re: Correction to MWI post

nd Plato warned us that the fundamental reality might be quite different from what we see/observe/measure, etc. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2017 8:19 am Sub

Re: Correction to MWI post

<marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2017 8:19 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 27 Jan 2017, at 13:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: What about Boltzmann Brains? Do you view these as mindful observers?

Re: Correction to MWI post

hing-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 26 Jan 2017, at 17:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: If dreaming is a function of biological things, It depends on how you define biological. If you define it like me with a theorem i

Re: Correction to MWI post

What about Boltzmann Brains? Do you view these as mindful observers? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 26 Jan 20

Re: Correction to MWI post

age- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 10:26 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 25 Jan 2017, at 21:25, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sounds like a Lôbian device is a necessity, i

Re: Correction to MWI post

roups.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 10:26 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 25 Jan 2017, at 21:25, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Sounds like a Lôbian device is a necessity, in this facet of the MWI? If they don't form naturally, God sets us in motion so we can invent them.

Re: Correction to MWI post

ups.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 11:09 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 25 Jan 2017, at 13:17, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Wishful thinking gives a sense of direction, Wishes can do that. Wishful thinking leads to believe in things which do not exist, and eventually to di

Re: Correction to MWI post

hing-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 11:09 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 25 Jan 2017, at 13:17, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Wishful thinking gives a sense of direction, Wishes can do that. Wishful thinking leads to believe in things which

Re: Correction to MWI post

vine being). It is the main axiom of the modal logic G (and G*). Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 5:46 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 25 Jan 2017, at 02

Re: Correction to MWI post

Wishful thinking gives a sense of direction, science tells how long it may take to get there. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 5:46 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI po

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 25 Jan 2017, at 07:35, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/24/2017 8:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. It can make sense in a

Re: Correction to MWI post

for enjoyment per se. Truth is not always enjoyable, and science is not necessarily wishful thinking. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 6:08 am Subject: Re: Corre

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 1/24/2017 8:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2017, at 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is

Re: Correction to MWI post

t; Sent: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 6:08 am Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post On 22 Jan 2017, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Unless these universes are somehow, touchable, it's as if, they don't exist. Not at all. Linearitu of QM makes them untouchable, but we have sti

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 23 Jan 2017, at 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 23 Jan 2017, at 20:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/23/2017 3:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2017, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Unless these universes are somehow, touchable, it's as if, they don't exist. Not at all. Linearitu of QM makes them untouchable, but

Re: Correction to MWI post

Sure, but then you still need to explain how an apparently classical world obtains. And of course it's quite possible QM does not provide an exact description of Nature since attempts to quantize gravity run into problems. Brent On 1/23/2017 12:02 PM, smitra wrote: Truly classical worlds

Re: Correction to MWI post

Truly classical worlds cannot arise from QM, it's simply not possible for the description of Nature in terms of a Hilbert space to somehow reduce (in an exact sense) to a classical phase space. So, this whole idea of a classical World at some macroscopic scale is not going to work, unless you

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet complete the reading of that note,

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 1/23/2017 3:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2017, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Unless these universes are somehow, touchable, it's as if, they don't exist. Not at all. Linearitu of QM makes them untouchable, but we have still to accept their physical existence

Re: Correction to MWI post

On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet complete the reading of that note, though). The MWI is not born with Everett,

Re: Correction to MWI post

on self-observation. Bruno -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> To: EveryThing <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 3:39 pm Subject: Fwd: Correction to MWI post Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. Brent Forwarded Message -

Re: Correction to MWI post

t; Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 3:39 pm Subject: Fwd: Correction to MWI post Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. Brent Forwarded Message Use this MWI to access the Aeon article. Sorry -- You received this message

Fwd: Correction to MWI post

Phillip Ball's critique of MWI. Brent Forwarded Message Use this MWI to access

A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are not exactly the same

Hi Stephen P. King (and Richard) That particles (strings) can see the universe the universe is different from monadic (indirect) perception because monadic perception does not occur by photons, distances are not involved, and so is instantaneous. Monadic perception is also somewhat imperfect

Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are not exactly the same

String theory explains indirect monadic perception as the instantaneous mapping of the entire universe outside the monad to its interior in a r- 1/r mapping, first derived by Brian Green in a two-dimensional approximation. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Re: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are notexactly the same

: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:12:07 Subject: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are notexactly the same String theory explains indirect monadic perception as the instantaneous mapping of the entire universe outside the monad to its

Re: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are notexactly the same

yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:12:07 *Subject:* Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but are notexactly the same String theory explains indirect monadic perception as the instantaneous mapping

Re: Re: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but arenotexactly the same

the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 09:07:52 Subject: Re: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but arenotexactly the same Hi Roger Clough, In Green's 2-D solution the monad is approximated as a circle, which

Re: 0, + and * = Physical laws ? CORRECTION

On 9/21/2011 2:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: [SPK] The ideal case of a bisimulation is an equivalence between computations. For example, a pair of implemented computations are bisimilar when, given identical inputs, they yield identical outputs. We generalize the idea to the dynamical

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds (correction)

Jason wrote: Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times. If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999 lifetimes would only add to the negative observer moments created

Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds (correction)

Jason wrote: Jason wrote: Here the replication is only the optimal choice for neutral life times. If a lifetime is very positive, the 999,999 good lives outweigh the one tortured. If the spared lifetimes were very negative, the 999,999 lifetimes would only add to the negative observer

correction 8-15-06

With apologies: In my long post I referred to happenings after the BB as ...in the 10^42 or ^32 sec of the first sec... Of course I meant 10^-42 and 10^-32 first sec-fractions. John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: A question re measure {correction 2}

Hi Russell: I would change my last post and say that since tails pair with many heads and heads pair with many tails [assuming I am right re what you said] the most compact way to build an All is to use heads as the kernel where ever possible. As heads are encompassed by evolving Somethings

Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}

don't deny the above terms from other universes but I do not restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we use for ours). John M --- Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Russell: Correction in caps and []. More Additional comments: My definition of kernel is the information

Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}

Hi Russell and John: The simplest response is that in many of the discussions on this list there runs a current of what I see as a level of systemic change. There are for example computers computing, or observers observing. Russell proposes [as I understand it] that there is a degree of

Re: A question re measure {correction}

Hi Russell: Correction in caps and []. More Additional comments: My definition of kernel is the information necessary to establish a particular division of the list. This requires the All to contain mostly tails if my comments in my last two posts is ok. The result of my dynamic as I see