re:Is classical teleportation possible?

From: Marchal Bruno <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:54:29 +0100 (MET)

Dear Stephen,


You wrote:
> I followed the UDA link and read the post and fell flat on my face when
>I read the term "classical teleportation". I would like to know what is the
>theoretical basis of a belief that "classical teleportation" is even
>possible?


Classical information, in the "physical" traditionnal sense has
always been considered as possible. Classical information is teleported
at evry moment through phones, nets, TV-channel, etc. In Science-Fiction
book, it has often been called simply "teleportation". Only with the advent
of "quantum teleportation" sometimes I feel the need to add "classical"
for preventing possible confusion.


>I can accept TM emulability for the sake of the argument, but the
>notion of classical teleportation is something that is equivalent to
>perpetual motion machines in my thinking.


I don't understand. If someone is Turing-emulable at level L, and if by
chance he/she bet on that level for comp practice, then he/she can send
his/her digital description made at that level through any classical
information channel. Of course if the level is very low, for example if
there is a need to encode the quantum state
of the whole cosmos, then it is not possible to do it in practice. But
the reasoning still follows. So if you accept Turing-emulablity at a level
(even if only for the sake of the argument), then I don't see how you
could deny the possibility of classical teleportation at that level
(even if only for the sake of the argument).


>PS. How far have you considered Chu transforms?


Still not very far. Thanks for pointing me to Vaughan Pratt paper btw.
The paper proves also that it is possible to be a logician and at the
same time be aware of the mind-body problem (reconforting idea). But
Pratt's conception of mind is to narrow for my purpose. Nor can I take
his dualism as an ontological dualism, so his stuff is no really
stuff, and his approach is best seen as a sort of still purely
mathematical monisme, even if his use of the Chu transform give a nice
dualist panorama. We will see. Today, among the logicians, I would say
the Blute-Girard linear functors seems more rich, respectively to the
goal of finding intermediate structures between Z1* (the comp physics)
and Quantum Mechanics.

Best Regards,

Bruno
Received on Fri Nov 29 2002 - 08:54:51 PST