From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 11:09:59 EDT
In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0127.html Glen lamented:
>I never cease to be amazed that people ignore what is written. I present a means of testing MWH and this is the reaction:
>Richard wrote:
>>But seriously folks ... the argument that quantum computers require "real"
>>resources in alternate universes seems to be an empty and untestable laim.
>This is not serious scientific discussion or even criticism. 'Gut feels' are irrelevant in science, and ignoring suggestions which have passed peer review and been published (for which I gave entre to the literature in the post) seems to be hiding one's head.
Glen, I am really glad that we have established a congenial line of communication, since otherwise you might take offence at what I now must say.
I did not give an irrelevent "gut feeling" - I simply stated my opinion, which was immediately followed by the REASON for that opinion. That's called a "reasoned opinion." I quote myself:
>the argument that quantum computers require "real" resources in alternate universes seems to be an empty and untestable claim. All that is needed for a quantum computer to work is the set of equations governing quantum mechanics. We already know that these equations work in every area tested so far, so a quantum computer would merely be an application of existing knowledge. It would give no more evidence for MHW than found in the currently existing evidence for QM.
And now for the ultimate in irony. I could have just as well quoted your own post Glen! Deutsch cites exactly the same argument I made, namely that the invention of the Quantum Computer would merely be an application of the Quantum Mechanics and would not add anything new to the evidence for or against MWH. I quote your quote of Deutsch in your post:
>'That argument--'Whwere was it done?--is already valid today even before we have ever built a factorizatoin engine.' Deutsch said. 'We can look in theory at the design of the machine, never mind whether we can actually build it. To me it's no more convincing for somebody to come and tell me, 'Well, look we've factored this number,' than to look at the equations that say the machine would factor the number if you could only build it."
Now this is ironic, is it not? You claimed amazement that others failed to read your post, when in fact you failed to read the post that you yourself wrote!
God bless you Glen. I really enjoy talking with you. Please read Proverbs 27.6 if you feel the urge to shoot me.
I think this is yet another reminder to us all not to jump to conclusions, nor use this list as a place to air frustrations. It is all to easy to err. I know this from personal experience. It should give us all pause before we hurl stones at some "obvious" fault in someone's post.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
-- Richard Amiel McGough Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 11:16:07 EDT