From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:55:50 EDT
Hi Walter, This will also partly answer Wayne Dawson,
You misunderstood what I said. I said that a calculation requires the
manipulation of a physical object. In a computer it is charged particles
which are manipulated (usually by the bucket full to create a charge which
can be measured) Inca's used knotted rope. An Abacus uses beads. Our brains
use voltage potentials (and thus are based ultimately on charged partcles).
My point was not that you can 'envision' something but that if you solve a
traveling salesmen problem for a 100,000 city schedule in a time less than
the age of the universe, (a problem that requres more calculations than
there are particles in our Hubble volume) then one is reasonable to ask
what particles or objects were manipulated to do the calculation. Remember
that in order to use all the particles in the universe there is travel time
limited by c. For instance the mass of the solar system is close to 2 x
10^33 g and a proton weighs 1.6 x 10^-24 gm which says in the solar system
there are 2.5 x 10^57 particles. Practically speaking to use for
calculational problems those in another solar system will require 8 years
travel time to the nearest star and back. In our Galxy there are
approximately 200 billion times more particles, but that brings us only up
to 5 x 10^68 or so. If a quantum computer can solve a problem requiring more
particles in a finite time, then we have to ask certain questions. Here is
an example of the Salesman problem.
Ivars Petersen writes:
"For instance, to find the shortest possible route to visit 10 cities, a
computer would have to calculate 362,880 possiblities...As the number of
cities grows, the number of possible paths skyrockets. Even the fastest
computers available would require years to handle the (49 x 48 x 47...x 3 x
2 x 1) or roughtly 10^62 possible paths in a 50-city itenerary." Islands of
Truth, (New York: Norton, 1990), p. 200-201.
And what if we solve a 10^80 city itinerary, where there are more cities
than there are particles in the Universe? Where would those particles come
from?
Wayne, it is hard to see, at least for me, what other explanation could
account for such a solution other than MWH. Could there be something? Of
course, but that is doing what the YECs do and hoping that the future will
solve today's theo-scientific problems.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Walter Hicks
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:23 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Probabilities and Protons
Glen Morton said -- among other things:
And one
thing I do know is that a calculation does entail the manipulation of
physical objects, if we can solve a problem requiring more objects than
exist in our universe, then it is correct that it will be difficult to avoid
the MWH hypothesis.
I struggle with the notion that the number of particles in the universe
can limit the possible outcomes of an event. Let me say simply why.
Consider arranging the people on this planet into various locations. Take
a small number of them -- say one million and then place them in the various
locations when people are known to exist. The first may be put in (say) any
one of 1 billion locations. the second similarly. So we get as the possible
numbers 10^9*10^9*10^9..........*10( with there being 10^6 terms. This
number is 10^(9+9+9+.....+9) = 10^9^10^6. --- one whopper of a number..
I can envision many cases where the number of possible outcomes is greater
than the number of protons in the universe. It is not only the number of
protons, but where they are located as well and how they vary from moment ot
moment. why should the actual number of protons represent some sort of
limit? Are not the number of eigenvalues of one single particle much greater
than this so-called magical number?
Searching for understanding.
Walt
--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:56:09 EDT