- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Marchal Bruno <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:26:47 +0100 (MET)

Stephen Paul King wrote:

*> There do exist strong arguments that the "macroscopic state" of neurons
*

*>is not completely classical and thus some degree of QM entanglement is
*

*>involved. But hand waving arguments aside, I would really like to understand
*

*>how you and Bruno (and others), given the proof and explanations contained
*

*>in these above mentioned papers and others, maintain the idea that "any
*

*>quantum computer or physical system can be simulated by a classical
*

*>computer."
*

I agree with almost all the quotations you gave in your post

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4254.html

But they are not relevant for our issue.

Quantum computer can be emulated by classical computer (see below).

Quantum computer does not violate Church thesis. The set of

quantum computable functions is the same as the set of classically

computable functions.

The difference are the following points 1) and 2):

1) A classical computer cannot emulate a quantum computer in "real time",

nor 2) can a classical computer provide a pure 3-person emulation of

some quantum *processes* like the generation of truly random

numbers.

But this is not relevant concerning our fundamental issue.

Concerning 1) the only thing which matters is that the classical UD

runs all programs including quantum one. THEN, by UDA reasoning, it is

shown that "real time" is a 1-person (plural) emerging notion. Even

if the UD need many googol-years to compute each "quantum step", from the

inside 1-person point of view, that delays are not observable. CF the

"invariance lemma" in UDA.

Concerning 2): idem! We cannot generate truly random sequences, but we

can easily (with the comp hyp!!!) generate histories in which

most average observers will correctly believe in truly random sequences.

It is enough for that purpose to iterate the Washington-Moscow

self-duplication experiment. If you iterate this 64 times, most of

the 1.85 10^19 version of you will conclude (correctly with comp) that

they are unable to predict their next self-output (W or M) and that their

histories, in this context are truly random.

Now, the simple reason why the quantum is turing-emulable is that the

solutions of Schroedinger or Dirac Wave Equation(s) are computable.

If you simulate such a wave you will realise that it simulates the

many-world or many-dreams, even in such a way of making extravaguant

histories much more rare than normal (lawfull) histories.

This is not yet obvious with pure comp, where non quantum histories

must yet be proved measure-negligeable (but see my thesis and posts to

get a feeling why with comp it should be so, and why indeed it seems to

be so).

Bruno

Received on Mon Dec 30 2002 - 08:29:19 PST

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:26:47 +0100 (MET)

Stephen Paul King wrote:

I agree with almost all the quotations you gave in your post

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4254.html

But they are not relevant for our issue.

Quantum computer can be emulated by classical computer (see below).

Quantum computer does not violate Church thesis. The set of

quantum computable functions is the same as the set of classically

computable functions.

The difference are the following points 1) and 2):

1) A classical computer cannot emulate a quantum computer in "real time",

nor 2) can a classical computer provide a pure 3-person emulation of

some quantum *processes* like the generation of truly random

numbers.

But this is not relevant concerning our fundamental issue.

Concerning 1) the only thing which matters is that the classical UD

runs all programs including quantum one. THEN, by UDA reasoning, it is

shown that "real time" is a 1-person (plural) emerging notion. Even

if the UD need many googol-years to compute each "quantum step", from the

inside 1-person point of view, that delays are not observable. CF the

"invariance lemma" in UDA.

Concerning 2): idem! We cannot generate truly random sequences, but we

can easily (with the comp hyp!!!) generate histories in which

most average observers will correctly believe in truly random sequences.

It is enough for that purpose to iterate the Washington-Moscow

self-duplication experiment. If you iterate this 64 times, most of

the 1.85 10^19 version of you will conclude (correctly with comp) that

they are unable to predict their next self-output (W or M) and that their

histories, in this context are truly random.

Now, the simple reason why the quantum is turing-emulable is that the

solutions of Schroedinger or Dirac Wave Equation(s) are computable.

If you simulate such a wave you will realise that it simulates the

many-world or many-dreams, even in such a way of making extravaguant

histories much more rare than normal (lawfull) histories.

This is not yet obvious with pure comp, where non quantum histories

must yet be proved measure-negligeable (but see my thesis and posts to

get a feeling why with comp it should be so, and why indeed it seems to

be so).

Bruno

Received on Mon Dec 30 2002 - 08:29:19 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*