Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS.
Hi Jack, - Original Message - From: "Jack Mallah" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS. -- On Mon, 1/25/10, Stephen Paul King wrote: Does not the mutual interfearence between the "copies" hace something to do with a QM systems ability to compute exponensially more than a classical system? If so, then reducing the number or density of copies would lead to an attenuation in the computational power of the associated system. That is clearly not a good thing! Hi Stephen. In answer to your question, the first thing I must point out is that there is no evidence that the human brain can perform any quantum computing, and good reasons to think it can't - it's hard to isolate qbits from the environment. Also, even for a quantum computer, by 'copy' I don't think we just mean other parts of the wavefunction; we mean systems that perform the same computation. So in any case, if it's really 'copies' that we are reducing, and not limiting it in some other way, by definition there would be no change in the type or output of computation. However, the number of implementations would be reduced. An interesting question is whether conscious quantum computers would tend to observe the Born Rule as we do. I think they would, but it's not something that can be tested experimentally by us, because the only thing we would test is that our own Born Rule predicts what replies from them we tend to recieve. In most of our worlds they would agree that they see the Born Rule, but we'd have no way to test if that's true in most of their own worlds. [SPK] Forget for now whether or not the brain can perform quantum computing, my question would still obtain in the context of the fact (at least as D. Deutsch explains in his book) that the universe is at its core quantum mechanical. I was considering the two slit experiment and wondering if the numer of possible paths where reduced there would be a related decrease in the computational power of the system. My reasoning follows from my understanding of what Feynman pointed out: "that a classical Turing machine would presumably experience an exponential slowdown when simulating quantum phenomena, while his hypothetical universal quantum simulator would not." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantum_simulator *** PS: I still would like to understand how the notion of measure or density is considered. Perhaps you could ask a more specific question. Measure I thought I explained in the paper. By 'density' I'm not sure what you mean here. [SPK] Which paper is that? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS.
-- On Mon, 1/25/10, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Does not the mutual interfearence between the "copies" hace something to do > with a QM systems ability to compute exponensially more than a classical > system? If so, then reducing the number or density of copies would lead to an > attenuation in the computational power of the associated system. That is > clearly not a good thing! Hi Stephen. In answer to your question, the first thing I must point out is that there is no evidence that the human brain can perform any quantum computing, and good reasons to think it can't - it's hard to isolate qbits from the environment. Also, even for a quantum computer, by 'copy' I don't think we just mean other parts of the wavefunction; we mean systems that perform the same computation. So in any case, if it's really 'copies' that we are reducing, and not limiting it in some other way, by definition there would be no change in the type or output of computation. However, the number of implementations would be reduced. An interesting question is whether conscious quantum computers would tend to observe the Born Rule as we do. I think they would, but it's not something that can be tested experimentally by us, because the only thing we would test is that our own Born Rule predicts what replies from them we tend to recieve. In most of our worlds they would agree that they see the Born Rule, but we'd have no way to test if that's true in most of their own worlds. > PS: I still would like to understand how the notion of measure or density is > considered. Perhaps you could ask a more specific question. Measure I thought I explained in the paper. By 'density' I'm not sure what you mean here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Jack Mallah's paper on QS.
Hi Jacques, AS I re-read your paper, I had a thought: Does not the mutual interfearence between the "copies" hace something to do with a QM systems ability to compute exponensially more than a classical system? If so, then reducing the number or density of copies would lead to an attenuation in the computational power of the associated system. That is clearly not a good thing! It seems to me that what we experience as individuals is the "best of all possible worlds" and anything that reduces the ability of our quantum nature to span the spectrum of possibilities is anathema to our existence in such a world. Onward! Stephen PS: I still would like to understand how the notion of measure or density is considered. Could you link a recent paper or article on the subject? - Original Message - From: "Jack Mallah" To: Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 5:16 PM Subject: measure again '10 snip --- On Wed, 1/13/10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: This paper by Jacques Mallah outlines the position: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187. A point of disagreement when we discussed this paper on the list about a year ago is that Jacques thinks it would be a bad thing if there were many copies of a person in lockstep and some of the copies were destroyed, Indeed, decreasing the amount of consciousness (i.e. killing people) would be bad. The fact that a few other, similar 'brothers' would still survive matters little. Killing one man is not OK just because he has a brother. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
