**From:** Smigrodzki, Rafal (*SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu*)

**Date:** Mon May 20 2002 - 11:59:26 MDT

**Next message:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "RE: we are real! (was; singularity arrival estimate...)"**Previous message:**Eugen Leitl: "Formal contract language"**Maybe in reply to:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "we are real! (was; singularity arrival estimate...)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Michael Roy Ames [mailto:michaelroyames@hotmail.com]

wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Smigrodzki, Rafal <SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu>

...

* > The recent factorization of the number 15 by a quantum
*

* > mechanical algorithm makes the existence of the other
*

branches of reality

* > increasingly difficult to ignore.
*

* > Rafal
*

* >
*

Hold the phone! Inference error! The existence of Quantum

Mechanics

theory, and its practical application to quantum computing,

does not infer

the truth or falsehood of the Multiverse POV. AFAIK the

Multiverse POV has

provided no additional predictions over those given by QM.

I haven't heard

of even a single test that might prove the M-POV true, or

false, or even

change the likelihood of it at all. (Or have I missed

something?)

### Well, not being a physicist, my answer might be vague

but here it goes: MV does say that when a superposition decoheres, all

eigenstates achieve independent existence, while a classical QM, only one

eigenstate is real - the one containing the observer. Now, if you ask what

is means to be real, a metaphysical question, both physicists and

philosophers will have difficulty with a clear answer. Some, like David

Bohm, will say that our universe is real but there is also a "guiding wave",

equivalent to all the other branches of the universe, yet somewhat less

real. Others will flatly refuse an answer, like the Copenhagen school

adherents.

On a bit more naive level, we tend to think that a correct

mathematical answer can be only provided by a really existing computer, not

an imaginary device. Therefore, if you successfully use a computer whose

functioning depends on a superposition of states, not on a single

eigenstate, you would have to conclude that all the eigenstates have an

existence, at least enough to perform calculations. This would become even

more striking once the machine operates on a few hundred qubits, equivalent

to 10x80 atoms (give or take a couple orders of magnitude), in effect

outperforming a classical Turing machine the size of the visible universe.

You need real particles to make a real factorization. So, I claim that

calculation is proof of existence of the device performing the calculation.

This is somewhat similar to the philosophy of Henri Bergson, who entertained

the idea that physics is a branch of mathematics, and there is no absolute

difference between the existence of a mathematical or a physical object.

Now, if we ever build a quantum computer capable of passing

the Turing test, with significant parts of its reasoning implemented in the

superposition, it would also constitute proof that the other branches of the

multiverse may contain conscious (i.e. Turing-capable) entities.

If the "other" particles in a superposition can calculate,

and even consciously think, then we'd have to conclude they are real. By

extension, it would be then somewhat artificial to think that *only* the

superposition of a small region of the universe (the quantum computer) has a

multiplicity of really existing eigenstates - you would have to seriously

consider the idea that the whole universe is a superposition of real

eigenstates - a multiverse.

The MV theory does not contradict classical QM, but it does

predict that quantum computers will provide real mathematical answers (even

ones unattainable using all the known matter in our universe), and might

even be able to provide a narrative (as an observer) describing quantum

states in a superposition, an idea rather difficult to reconcile with the

Schroedinger's cat.

---

I sincerely hope that Quantum Computing proves-out its early

promise, it

could put an additional exponent of 'more' into Moore's Law.

If it proves

practical, then you can bet the year QC kicks in will see an

not a doubling,

but a 256-fold increase in computing power, partly because

current bandwidth

problems will be completely side-stepped by QC chips.

### Yes, yes, yes!

Rafal

**Next message:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "RE: we are real! (was; singularity arrival estimate...)"**Previous message:**Eugen Leitl: "Formal contract language"**Maybe in reply to:**Smigrodzki, Rafal: "we are real! (was; singularity arrival estimate...)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT
*