From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 20:58:17 EDT
Hi Richard,
One can't avoid occasionally creating a dog's breakfast (a UK slang term).
Allow me to correct a few things though.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Richard McGough
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:10 AM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: The Definition of Irony (was Re: MWH experimental test)
>
>
>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.
No, I did read this. What you fail to recall is something I said in an
earlier note. I noted that calculations require the manipulation of
particles. There is also something that most apologists who speak on
information miss as well. Information lies in the physical arrangement of
matter. There is no way to have information without having it attached to
matter. Thus when you wish to calculate something from that information, you
simply must manipulate particles or some form of matter. This from Brown's
book speaking about 2010,
"Speaking at a conference on quantum computation held at the royal society
in London, Williams said that by then individual transistors on chips will
be turned on or off by as few as eight electrons, compared with about 500
today." Julian Brown, "Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse," (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 2000), p. 30
So, you didn't understand the import of what Deutsch was saying. When he
started with the statement of the number of particles in the known universe,
it was for a reason. It is because information is physical. Rolf Landauer,
an IBM Fellow is quoted,
"In a sense what David Deutsch had to say [on the Church-Turing] principle]
was related but perhaps not equivalent to the thing I keep stressing, which
is that information is a physical quantity. It's not an abstract thing, it's
not pat of theology, it's not part of philosophy. Information is inevitably
represented by real physical entities and is therefore tied to the laws of
physics." Julian Brown, "Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse," (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 2000), p. 116
I repeat the quote. Read what he says in light of the above:
'There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visuble universe, an
utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500.. So if the visible universe
were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even
remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number.
Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the compuation performed?'
"For Deutsch the only answer that makes any sense is that different parts
of the calculation are performed in different universes, all 10^500 of
them. Furthermore, the existence of Shor's algorithm is pwerful testimony
even though it's never actually be run on any hardwar. '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."
"To understand nature in its entirety, Deutsch beleives, we must accept the
existence of an almost limitless number of universes." Julian Brown Minds,
Machines and the Multiverse, (new York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p.26
If you want to do a calculation which requires more than 10^80 particles,
you are not getting those particles out of this Hubble Volume.
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.
Actually I disagree. he didn't say the same thing you did at all. You said
MWH was untestable. Deutsch is saying it is testable.
>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.
I agree, Richard. But I would also suggest that one understand the issue as
well. The one thing that frankly frustrates the tar out of me is the
tendency with Christians to simply ignore data they don't like. YECs do it
all the time. I think ID folk do it all the time. and indeed, when I see it,
it is not a good sign. The thing to do is SCIENTIFICALLY explain why it
won't work. And above you missed the fact that it was Don, not you, who
used the term 'gut feel'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 20:58:30 EDT