From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2009 - 20:38:22 MST
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:26 AM, John K Clark <email@example.com>wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 "Krekoski Ross"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > We both agree that quantum procedures interact with
> > classical procedures all the time.
> No we don't agree on that. If quantum uncertainty and chaos interacted
> with computers "all the time" the machines would be useless
yes. of course.
> because even
> with identical input you'd get different output all the time; if you
> want random output there is no need to go to all the trouble of making
> an electronic computer, a roulette wheel will work fine.
haha. true enough.
> Yes there are some complex systems, like the weather, where the flap of
> a butterfly's wings could cause a tornado a year later,
correct. But this is more a product of chaos, rather than quantum
uncertainty. Though I'm sure the latter has a role to play as well.
> but computers
> were designed not to be that sensitive or they wouldn't be much good for
> evolution must have done the same thing with our brains of
> they wouldn't be much good either.
Perhaps, but this is where we disagree. I would argue that we make constant
use of random background noise. If we were to come up with the solution to a
simple mathematical problem, 15 + 7 +2.5 + 3.5 + 8. Then I agree with you
that regardless of the background noise, we would probably come up with the
same answer. There is constant error and consistency checking going on here.
Its also highly goal oriented so the outcome converges on a single pattern.
If we extend the metaphor of the identical room a bit however, and lets say
we have two identical copies of a single individual, according to your
criteria of identical-- with respect to their classical arrangement of
molecules, but not identical to a quantum level. We put them in two separate
but identical rooms, and ask them to draw random lines on a page for 10
hours. Will their lines be completely identical? In this scenario, there is
no error/consistency checking, it is less goal oriented.
Of course my intuition says there will be discernible differences between
the output. However if you're not convinced, then lets say that in one room,
we up the temperature 1/100th of a degrees-- will there be a discernible
difference in the output then? How about 1/10th of a degree? 2 degrees? At
what point will there be discernible output? I'm sure we both agree that
there will be different output if there is a 10 degree difference in
temperature in the room. HOWEVER, if we both give them the mathematical
question above, they will likely give the same answer, even with a
difference in temperature in the room.
Human behaviour is made up of different processes, not all of them are
directly analogous to the discrete precise computing that we're used to in
> >> now even the room must be quantum perfect?!
> So even though the being's senses are too course to see any difference
> in the room if there is any difference in the room at all the being will
> be different even though he sees no difference, hears no difference,
> smells no difference, tastes no difference and feels no different. Now
> you really are talking voodoo; and I don't believe the above reasoning
> is why you deduced the two are different, rather you decided the two are
> different and then looked for a reason to defend your opinion. I think
> it must be so because the reasons you give are so weak they wouldn't
> convince anyone unless they already believed it.
> John K Clark
> John K Clark
> http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:01:19 MDT