Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:26 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> It is doubtful (to some)  ANY of them, (IBM, Google, ...) will work for 
>> factoring big numbers. (You might have to run them returning false results 
>> after false results for a long time until you get a true answer - because 
>> of the noise.) *
>>
>
> Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson says in his book "Quantum Computing 
> since Democritus" it would be more interesting if that turned out to be 
> true because if large scale Quantum Computers can not be built for a 
> fundamental reason rather than just because of engineering or monetary 
> difficulties that would mean a new law of physics has been discovered. 
> Nothing we know now precludes their existence, but there is a lot we don't 
> know.
>
>  John K Clark
>

The difficulty is quantum error correction coding (QECC). One needs to have 
a system for computing the Hamming distance between states and their 
updates. Any error then can be computed with a type of quantum error 
correction, such as hexicode or E8. Now to make things a bit loopy, with 
quantum computing you have quantum processors running the QECC. So things 
run into some funny issues. In general, this could be done "well enough," 
so if the quantum computing can occur in a short enough time then errors 
can be managed. 

LC


 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86be4918-f9f4-4498-981b-81b7d7aaa426%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> *> the  indexical first person self, which know very well who he is,*
>

Yes indeed, Mr.He knows who he is, Mr.He knows he is the man who saw W and
also knows that the man who sees W is the W man, and both those things
could be predicted long ago back in H.


> *> You talk like if the guy could feel to be in the two places at once,
> which is pure nonsense.*
>

*THE* guy can't even be at one place at once because the entire concept of "
*THE* guy" becomes pure nonsense in a world that has guy
duplicating machines.


> *> in H, he is unable to write down in its diary (taken with him in the
> duplication experience) the particular outcome he can expect,*
>

Bruno I don't know or care what Mr.He expects but I do know one thing,
there can not be a "particular outcome" because Mr.He HAS BEEN DUPLICATED!
That's what the word "duplicated" means.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0FkRjGeBf48%2B5C_cqHZp3O7u_GSdLNjQ7K-rYcOfDQBA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Philip Thrift 
wrote:

*> But this theoretical quantum parallelism speedup will be wiped
> out (according to critics) in an actual quantum computer due to
> "environmental" noise when the number of qubits is large enough to do
> something useful.*


Yes that's what critics say, but quantum error correcting algorithms have
already been developed and non-abelian anyons would produce far fewer
errors to start with than anything used today; critics can not say why none
of these things will work they just say something unspecified will turn up
to make them unworkable. Well maybe so, but if it turns out to be true that
would mean new physics has been discovered. Judging from the rate of
investment in Quantum Computers in recent years I conclude that the
financial community is betting that new physics will not be discovered.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv08o%3DpHsaY6VnRs3PnBmZ6X0S%2Bz0E2rnbePUZV4W5gGQA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 6:55 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> every time I ask you for an example of a program in nothing but
>> "arithmetical reality" making a real calculation and producing a real
>> result you refer me to ASCII characters printed in the pages of a dusty old
>> book.
>
>
> *> Well, I am hoping to read, and understand them.*
> *I could do the same as you, and tell you that each time you answer a
> post, you just add up a sequence of ASCII character.*
>

But when my ASCII characters enter your physical computer in the form of
physical electrical impulses they cause the production of physical photons
radiating from your physical screen that enter your physical eye that then
sends a physical nerve impulse to your physical brain which process that
information in the way Turing described and then causes your physical
fingers to make certain physical movements over your physical keyboard.

*> The notion of computation is absolute in the sense that all computations
> in derives models of arithmetic are the same.*
>

I agree, all computations derived from nothing but pure arithmetic are
exactly the same because zero is equal to zero.


> >> Turing already explained how matter can be intelligent,
>
>
>
> *> No. He just bet on computationalism. That does not make matter
> intelligent. That makes mater bale to emulate an intelligent person*
>

I don't know what that means you need to give me an example. Was Einstein
intelligent or did he just emulate an intelligent person and how can you
tell the difference?

*> If you believe that matter plays a role in the existence of a
> computation, you have to explain a bit more what you mean by matter*
>

Rather than give a definition let me give an example. Matter is something
that can explain why the inverse of the Fine Structure Constant is the pure
dimensionless number 137.03602855338, physics can see that there is
something very very special about that pure number but to pure mathematics
there is absolutely nothing special about it even though it's a pure
number, to mathematics it's just another humdrum number. And that's why
physics is more fundamental than mathematics.

*> and explain how it can select a computation in arithmetic and make it
> “more real”,*
>

I don't need to explain how matter makes computations more real, I just
need to demonstrate that it does, and to do that all I have to do is point
to one of INTEL's multi-billion dollar chip fabrication foundries.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv12UrdhozTsknpX%2B2-wEemQrNiNkyL-xAw-XLUKjNQqDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:58:59 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 6:47 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> The checking part is not the issue. The issue is how much time a QC 
>> will need to run (the noise wiping out the parallelism) to find a correct 
>> factorization vs. a standard computer (even with quantum chip QRNGs for 
>> generating random numbers for a probabilistic factorization program, like 
>> Dixon's factorization). *
>>
>
> Shor's Quantum Factoring Algorithm does not need a QRNG or any other sort 
> of random number generator. And Shor does not make use of probabilities 
> although he does use something more general; a probability is always a 
> positive Real Number but Shor uses something that can be negative or even a 
> Complex Number for its internal calculations although it's output is always 
> a integer.
>
> Here is a explanation of how Shor's Algorithm works:
>
> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208
>
> John K Clark
>
>
I was referring to a probabilistic integer factoring algorithm like Dixon's 
factoring method, not Shor's.


The problem with Shor's method is that it depends on quantum parallelism.

"Shor's algorithm utilizes quantum parallelism to perform the exponential 
number of operations in one step."
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/esfandyarpour2/

But this theoretical quantum parallelism speedup will be *wiped out* 
(according to critics) in an actual quantum computer due to "environmental" 
noise when the number of qubits is large enough to do something useful.

So Shor's algorithm may work in quantum theory, but will fail in practice 
with more than a few qubits.

cf. https://www.quantiki.org/wiki/shors-factoring-algorithm


Like all quantum computer algorithms, Shor's algorithm is probabilistic: it 
gives the correct answer with high probability, and the probability of 
failure can be decreased by repeating the algorithm. 


@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af5eac45-0fcb-47a8-b933-822ce7c603d0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 6:47 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> The checking part is not the issue. The issue is how much time a QC will
> need to run (the noise wiping out the parallelism) to find a correct
> factorization vs. a standard computer (even with quantum chip QRNGs for
> generating random numbers for a probabilistic factorization program, like
> Dixon's factorization). *
>

Shor's Quantum Factoring Algorithm does not need a QRNG or any other sort
of random number generator. And Shor does not make use of probabilities
although he does use something more general; a probability is always a
positive Real Number but Shor uses something that can be negative or even a
Complex Number for its internal calculations although it's output is always
a integer.

Here is a explanation of how Shor's Algorithm works:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1DPo%3D7uP20UQYtJSUzuN4QOgkhoyivb5CnxrCqjXJneQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 6:06:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Dec 2019, at 22:46, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:59 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> >> For the 998th time, given that in Bruno's scenario a first person 
>>> experience duplicating machine is invoked there is no such thing as *THE 
>>> *first person experience;
>>
>>
>> *> There is. It is what you can expect to feel when doing the experience.*
>>
>
>  Bruno Marchal would be utterly lost without his best friend, good old 
> Mr.You.
>  
>
>> > *In Helsinki, you believe that you will survive (because* [...]
>>
>
> In Helsinki John Clark can make a educated guess about what will happen to 
> John Clark tomorrow, but no living thing has a clue what Mr.You's fate will 
> be because thanks to Bruno's "You Duplicating Machine" nobody has a clue 
> who Mr.You is.
>
> *> you know that it is impossible in Helsinki to write its name in the 
>> first person* [...]
>>
>
> In a world that contains a "THE Duplicating Machine" there is no such 
> thing as "THE first person"
>  
>
>> *> The first “he” is the guy, when unique, in Helsinki.*
>>
>
> If that's what it means then "he" will not survive because tomorrow nobody 
> will be unique in Helsinki because tomorrow nobody will be in Helsinki. 
> That doesn't contradict Mechanism it just shows that you've made yet 
> another goofy definition and I'm sure it won't be your last.
>  
>
>> *> The second “he” refers to each copies’ first person experience 
>> accessible*
>>
>
> And now in addition to goofiness we have ambiguity, the same personal 
> pronoun referring to two different people.
>  
>
>> *> So now, move to step 4*
>>
>
> You must be joking!
>
> >> It's impossible to say if that's true or not because nobody knows what 
>>> question was asked, certainly Bruno doesn’t.
>>
>>
>> *> The question is simple,*
>>
>
> The question is not simple, the question is retarded. 
>
> * > and most people get the answer by themselves*
>>
>
> Most people, including a certain Mr.Marchal, just assumes that articles 
> "the" and "a" and common personal pronouns can keep on being used in 
> exactly the same way as they always have been even in the presence of 
> something that has never existed before like a "Matter Duplicating 
> Machine", a "People Duplicating Machine", a "First Person View Duplicating 
> Machine", a "THE Duplicating Machine". And a few years ago John Clark would 
> have just assumed that a professional logician would know better than to 
> make the same sort of silly mistake that most people make, but John Clark's 
> assumption turned out to be wrong.
>
> >> If the referent is the man that is experiencing H right now on 
>>> December 9 then obviously even without duplicating machines we can say with 
>>> absolute certainty "you" will not survive tomorrow because on December 10 
>>> nobody will be experiencing H on December 9. 
>>
>>
>> *> Nobody has ever considered such useless identity criterion.*
>>
>
>  *WHAT?! *You said just a few lines before that "*The first “he” is the 
> guy, when unique, in Helsinki*."!
>
>  >> But if we take the everyday meaning of the personal pronoun, somebody 
>>> who remembers being the H man of December 9, then "you" will survive in 
>>> December 10.
>>
>>
>> *> That’s far better.*
>>
>
> Yes, but December 10 is after the duplication so the personal pronoun "he" 
> is now open to more than one meaning, in other words "he" is ambiguous.
>>
>>
> >> And if a you duplicating machine is thrown into the mix then the "you" 
>>> as used in the above is ambiguous 
>>
>>
>> *> No it is not. We have agreed that both copies have the right identity. 
>> *
>>
>
> Sometimes John agrees with Bruno for half a sentence but then in the 
> second half Bruno contradicts the first half. If today both remember being 
> the Helsinki man yesterday and that is when the question was asked, and if 
> today, to nobody's surprise, both answer to the name Mr.You, then yesterday 
> it would be ambiguous to ask about what Mr.You would or would not see on 
> the next day.  If that's not a example of ambiguity what is? 
>  
>
>> > *It is just that the prediction is impossible to make. *
>>
>
> If you've found something where the prediction is impossible and the 
> postdiction is impossible too then what you have found is not profound, 
> it's just stupid.
>
> >>> *FROM THEIR FIRST PERSON VIEW,  they did get one bit of information.*
>>>
>>>  
>
> >>  And what was that one bit of information that the W Man got?
>>>
>> That he ended up seeing W.
>>
>>
>> *> Yes,*
>>
>
> So the "experiment" provided zero bits of new information because 
> yesterday before the "experiment" everybody already knew that would happen, 
> even Mr.You (whoever that is) knew it because everybody knows that 
> tautologies are always true. 
>
>
>
>
> You keep confusing the indexical third person self, that in my thesis is 
> defined with the second recursion theorem, and the  indexical first 

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Dec 2019, at 22:46, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:59 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> For the 998th time, given that in Bruno's scenario a first person 
> >> experience duplicating machine is invoked there is no such thing as THE 
> >> first person experience;
> 
> > There is. It is what you can expect to feel when doing the experience.
> 
>  Bruno Marchal would be utterly lost without his best friend, good old Mr.You.
>  
> > In Helsinki, you believe that you will survive (because [...]
> 
> In Helsinki John Clark can make a educated guess about what will happen to 
> John Clark tomorrow, but no living thing has a clue what Mr.You's fate will 
> be because thanks to Bruno's "You Duplicating Machine" nobody has a clue who 
> Mr.You is.
> 
> > you know that it is impossible in Helsinki to write its name in the first 
> > person [...]
> 
> In a world that contains a "THE Duplicating Machine" there is no such thing 
> as "THE first person"
>  
> > The first “he” is the guy, when unique, in Helsinki.
> 
> If that's what it means then "he" will not survive because tomorrow nobody 
> will be unique in Helsinki because tomorrow nobody will be in Helsinki. That 
> doesn't contradict Mechanism it just shows that you've made yet another goofy 
> definition and I'm sure it won't be your last.
>  
> > The second “he” refers to each copies’ first person experience accessible
> 
> And now in addition to goofiness we have ambiguity, the same personal pronoun 
> referring to two different people.
>  
> > So now, move to step 4
> 
> You must be joking!
> 
> >> It's impossible to say if that's true or not because nobody knows what 
> >> question was asked, certainly Bruno doesn’t.
> 
> > The question is simple,
> 
> The question is not simple, the question is retarded.
> 
> > and most people get the answer by themselves
> 
> Most people, including a certain Mr.Marchal, just assumes that articles "the" 
> and "a" and common personal pronouns can keep on being used in exactly the 
> same way as they always have been even in the presence of something that has 
> never existed before like a "Matter Duplicating Machine", a "People 
> Duplicating Machine", a "First Person View Duplicating Machine", a "THE 
> Duplicating Machine". And a few years ago John Clark would have just assumed 
> that a professional logician would know better than to make the same sort of 
> silly mistake that most people make, but John Clark's assumption turned out 
> to be wrong.
> 
> >> If the referent is the man that is experiencing H right now on December 9 
> >> then obviously even without duplicating machines we can say with absolute 
> >> certainty "you" will not survive tomorrow because on December 10 nobody 
> >> will be experiencing H on December 9.
> 
> > Nobody has ever considered such useless identity criterion.
> 
>  WHAT?! You said just a few lines before that "The first “he” is the guy, 
> when unique, in Helsinki."!
> 
>  >> But if we take the everyday meaning of the personal pronoun, somebody who 
> remembers being the H man of December 9, then "you" will survive in December 
> 10.
> 
> > That’s far better.
> 
> Yes, but December 10 is after the duplication so the personal pronoun "he" is 
> now open to more than one meaning, in other words "he" is ambiguous.
> 
> >> And if a you duplicating machine is thrown into the mix then the "you" as 
> >> used in the above is ambiguous
> 
> > No it is not. We have agreed that both copies have the right identity. 
> 
> Sometimes John agrees with Bruno for half a sentence but then in the second 
> half Bruno contradicts the first half. If today both remember being the 
> Helsinki man yesterday and that is when the question was asked, and if today, 
> to nobody's surprise, both answer to the name Mr.You, then yesterday it would 
> be ambiguous to ask about what Mr.You would or would not see on the next day. 
>  If that's not a example of ambiguity what is?
>  
> > It is just that the prediction is impossible to make. 
> 
> If you've found something where the prediction is impossible and the 
> postdiction is impossible too then what you have found is not profound, it's 
> just stupid.
> 
> >>> FROM THEIR FIRST PERSON VIEW,  they did get one bit of information.
>  
> >>  And what was that one bit of information that the W Man got?
> That he ended up seeing W.
> 
> > Yes,
> 
> So the "experiment" provided zero bits of new information because yesterday 
> before the "experiment" everybody already knew that would happen, even Mr.You 
> (whoever that is) knew it because everybody knows that tautologies are always 
> true. 



You keep confusing the indexical third person self, that in my thesis is 
defined with the second recursion theorem, and the  indexical first person 
self, which know very well who he is, and, once he accept that he survives a 
duplication, know that he survives in both places from a third person view, but 
only in one non 

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Dec 2019, at 23:09, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> A good operational definition of "real" is something that produces 
> >> results, so you need to explain why some programs, like those inside a 
> >> computer connected to a power supply, produce results, but other programs, 
> >> like those printed out in ASCII characters in the pages of a dusty old 
> >> book, do not.
>  
> > We agree that a program printed in a book cannot do anything by itself, but 
> > a program implemented in the arithmetical reality can.
> 
> And every time I ask you for an example of a program in nothing but 
> "arithmetical reality" making a real calculation and producing a real result 
> you refer me to ASCII characters printed in the pages of a dusty old book.


Well, I am hoping to read, and understand them.

I could do the same as you, and tell you that each time you answer a post, you 
just add up a sequence of ASCII character.

I might make a post “against mathematical conventionalism” explaining more the 
difference between the arithmetical reality, and the theories about that 
arithmetical reality, which is need to understand how a model of arithmetic 
emulates all computations. I think that you, and perhaps some others, confuse 
the following notion:

- the language of arithmetic
- the theories of arithmetic
- the models of the theories of arithmetic.

The notion of computation is absolute in the sense that all computations in 
derives models of arithmetic are the same. There is possible notion of non 
standard computations, but those can be shown to be definitely not Turing 
emulable. In fact, addition and multiplication are already not computable when 
working in a non standard model of arithmetic.



> 
> 
> > You need to explain how your matter play any special role in making some 
> > computation conscious,
> 
> Turing already explained how matter can be intelligent,

No. He just bet on computationalism. That does not make matter intelligent. 
That makes mater bale to emulate an intelligent person, but matter is only what 
makes those computation effective relatively to you, and that happens as much 
in arithmetic too. All universal machine in arithmetic have to use matter (and 
its tensorial linear mathematics, to assure parallel computation in its first 
person plural reality). 

This does not make matter primitive though. On the contrary, mechanism prevent 
any ontological commitment, be it matter or god or whatever, to play any role 
in the relative actualisation of any reality. 

If you believe that matter plays a role in the existence of a computation, you 
have to explain a bit more what you mean by matter, and explain how it can 
select a computation in arithmetic and make it “more real”, “as opposed to make 
it more phenomenological real relatively to your current experiences.




> and Darwin's theory gives good reason to think that consciousness is a 
> byproduct of intelligence.

Darwin’s theory is entirely based on Descartes Mechanism, and Darwin foresaw 
the relative digitalises of information to make its theory consistent, and of 
course that has been confirmed by molecular genetics.

Mechanism just extends darwinism to the origin of the physical laws, in a way 
relating coherently consciousness and matter (something never done by the 
materialist theory of consciousness which needs the use of actual infinities to 
relate mind and body). Why not? OK. But inconsistent with mechanism.



> To put it another way, eventually you will always come to a brute fact and 
> one of them is consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.

No problem with this.
“Being processed” is mathematically defined by emulated by a universal machine. 
Matter plays no other role that making a computation accessible to another 
computation. Matter is an indexical view of Arithmetic when observed from 
inside.



> Like it or not that's as good an answer as we're ever going to get.

It made sense, if you use the mathematical definition of emulation. If by 
“processed” you mean “implement in the physical reality”, then this leads to 
contradiction.

Bruno 



> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Fc%2BcvLKXXTrxJfRt9gHbE5JHAFxqqfSkcJcRG8vjyGw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 5:30:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/14/2019 4:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> There are some engineers who think that although quantum processes do 
> occur in the quantum computers of the various types being built, none will 
> ever turn out to be useful (in doing really big tasks - whether factoring 
> huge integers or finding minimum-distance traveling-salesman paths). On big 
> problems they will just return random answers that are only "close" at best.
>
>
> Most quantum algorithms return a random value which only near the actual 
> answer in some sense.  So as I understand it the algorithm is repeated to 
> build up a statistical distribution of answers and then you have decide, 
> depending on your problem, what uncertainty you can tolerate.  In a lot of 
> problems "close" is good enough.  In some cases, like factoring big 
> numbers, it's easy to check the answer classically.
>
> Brent
>

The checking part is not the issue. The issue is how much time a QC will 
need to run (the noise wiping out the parallelism) to find a correct 
factorization vs. a standard computer (even with quantum chip QRNGs for 
generating random numbers for a probabilistic factorization program, like 
Dixon's factorization). 

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/065ac6a8-a957-4f16-9fe6-dd19eff615d9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Dec 2019, at 23:23, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Mechanism implies that the soul is immaterial,
> 
> Mechanism implies that information is as close to the traditional concept of 
> the soul and still remain within the Scientific Method.

No problem with this, but “information” is a tricky vague word. No problem … as 
long as you keep distinct the first person view and the third person view, 
which is all you need to derive the 1p-indeterminacy in the 3p 
self-multiplication. 




> 
> > before materialism became a (christian) dogma [...]
> 
> And that is my cue to say goodnight because nothing intelligent ever follows 
> from that. 

Typical dismiss we can expect from dogmatic  believer, indeed.

Bruno



> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3nQdK8zRiFKGUK1UMkdGaJWoD%2BAEE3JeeefnF_QmO5%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1EB44FD6-BF23-4C98-BDB5-B69E0BD78C18%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum Computer Factoring

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 6:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


>
> * > In some cases, like factoring big numbers, it's easy to check the
> answer classically.*
>

There are some problems that are hard to do but easy to check, for example
if I claim to have a better solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem than
you have it's easy to check if my claim is correct, just add up the
distance between cities and see if the sum is less than your sum; but if I
claim to have found the very best solution it would be very difficult for
you to check if my claim is true. Most believe it is fundamentally more
difficult to find the best solution than to find a better solution but this
has never been proven and is probably the greatest open problem in computer
science.

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0P5-HdoHv41aWXQE70WNP8MidjKN70O2mNxQr3o%2BY90A%40mail.gmail.com.