From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 21:09:41 EDT
Hi Glen,
Yeah, I think we should just drop this particular conversation. It appears we are not even understanding each others points.
Perhaps we will find something more fruitful to discuss in the future.
In any case, I am really glad that we got as far as we did.
Thanks for your good faith efforts.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Morton
To: richard@biblewheel.com ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: The Definition of Irony (was Re: MWH experimental test)
Hi Richard
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:14 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: RE: The Definition of Irony (was Re: MWH experimental test)
>
>
>>From post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0143.html
>
>Glen wrote:
>
>>One can't avoid occasionally creating a dog's breakfast (a UK slang term).
>
>I'm right with you there Glen. I'm glad to say you handled it very well.
>
>But I'm sorry to say that if we are going to have any further indepth
>conversation, I must ask that you be more careful with what you write. It
>has taken me about two hours to analyse your post so I could give a
>responsible answer.
I will do my best but you have to accept what I write because you aren't
here helping me write what I write. that is the nature of internet.
>
>I had written that
>
>>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.
>
>To which you replied:
>
>>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.
>
>OK - let me lay this out with clarity (QC = Quantum Computer):
>
>1) I said that a QC would not prove MWH because the QC would merely be an
>application of existing QM equations.
>2) I quoted you quoting Deutsch who said that QC was not necessary to prove
>MWH because the QC would merely be an application of existing QM equations.
>
>Please specify exactly how Deutsch "didn't say the same thing" in the
>SPECIFIC QUOTE that I cited.
>
>You statement that "he didn't say the same thing you did at all" is a
>complete misapplication of my words. Of course he didn't say the same thing
>as you put it -that would be painfully absurd!
Sigh, Of course Richard, I didn't mean that. I meant what I said. He didn't
agree with what you said. Deutsch is a leading advocate of the MWH and the
person who suggested a way to experimentally test MWH. So Of course he
wouldn't agree with your statement that it is untestable.
I did not and never would
>suggest anything like what you addressed. This is very confused and
>convoluted way to argue and wastes hours of my time and energy as I try to
>find a way to answer you clearly. It also makes the whole discussion opaque
>to those attempting to following it.
No one is making you spend hours on my notes. That is your choice. You can
simply hit the delete key if you prefer.
>
>Now I can understand how you might fall into such confusion. Deutsch's
>argument is fundamentally inconsistent and flawed. He merely asserts what
>you think he proves. Read that again. Deutsch merely asserts what you think
>he proves.
I didn't say he proved it. I said, IF we perform a calculation which uses
more particles than are currently in our Hubble volume and perform that
calculation in a time less than the age of the universe, the particles for
the calculation have to come from somewhere. I fully agree that there is a
certain level of probability that the calculation might shut down for lack
of resources. But then we would know the answer.
>
>He begins with ASSUMPTION that every quantum possibility represented by the
>wave function must be "acted out" by a real particle. This
>assumption may be
>equivalent to the MWH, though I'm not sure yet. He then shows that
>there are
>lots and lots of things that must be "acted out" so if we could make a QC,
>the fact that it works would prove his assumption. This is, of course, a
>fatally flawed argument. At best it would be a proof of MWH _given_ his
>assumption, but in now way does it prove his assumption!
That is not an assumption. It is a fact that you can't have a disembodied
wave function. There must be mass-energy at its heart. A simple example is
the de Broglie wavelength.
lambda = h/mv
If you put m=0 then the wavelength is infinite. there is no wave, it is a DC
shift, a constant. Thus, Deutsch is correct. That then means that if you
have a summation of more than 10^80 wave functions, you have used more than
the resources in our Hubble volume.
>
>He then backs off the QC and says that QM is sufficient to prove his point
>since QM implies the QC.
That latter statement is his opinion. His solid argument lies in the the
discussion of where the particles came from. That is the part of the quote
which disagrees with what you say he is saying.
>
>He could just as well never mentioned the QC at all. It is one huge
>smokescreen obscuring the assumption underlying his argument.
I have been watching this area for 10 years with fascination. I would
suggest that you go read some of the stuff that has been going on in this
area.
>
>His whole argument fails on one fundamental point. It is an INTERPRETATION
>of QM. It makes NO PREDICTIONS that differ from QM because it is
>nothing but
>and INTERPRETATION of QM.
Sigh, he wrote a quantum computer program which gives a 1 if MWH is correct
and a 0 or a 1 with 50-50 probability if Copenhagen is correct. That is
testable. I don't know why you continue to claim it isn't testable. I even
posted the note but you simply ignored the test. Others in the field
beleive it is a valid test. I have no reason to disagree with them.
>
>That is why I quoted Deutsch admitting that the QC was unnecssary to prove
>anything.
>
>This is the fundamental inconsistency of Deutsch's argument. He admits that
>his INTERPRETATION makes no predictions that differ from QM.
Deutsch wrote:
"There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly
miniscule 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. What did factorize
it then? How, and were was the computation performed. Brown quoting Deutsch
p. 25
Here is another attempt, in popular form for the group here, to get
Deutsch's ideas across.
"Computation, he notes, is not an abstract process. Ultimately it must
have some physical basis. Whether it's atoms or photons-- or electric
currents in a conventional computer--something must be manipulated in some
way to carry out a calculation. To make his point Deutsch cites the work of
Peter Shor, a mathematician at AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey." ~ Tim
Folger, "The Best Computer in All Possible Worlds," Discover Oct. 1995, p.
94-95
and:
"Shor, in constructing his proof of a quantum computer's potential, in
effect wrote a program for a computer that doesn't exist. It factors large
numbers by working on all the possible answers to a problem simultaneously.
Correct answers--that is, factors of the number in question--appear in the
form of a unique interference pattern at the end of the computer's
calculations, which the computer could read like some otherworldly
supermarket bar code. Shor's program cleverly causes all numbers that
aren't factors to cancel out in the interference pattern, like waves whose
crests and troughs annihilate each other.
"Deutsch claims tht if a quantum computer that can run Shor's program is
ever built, it will be difficult for other physicists to deny the
many-worlds model of quantum mechanics, fantastic as it seems. For example,
he asks, what would happen inside a quantum computer that used Shor's
program to factor a number that is, say, 250 digits long? To solve such a
problem, he answers, the computer would have to perform roughly 10^ 500
computations. 'There is no way that we know to get the answer in fewer than
that number of steps,' he says. 'If you were to write down on a piece of
paper what the computer is doing, you'd have to write down about 10^500
different lines of reasoning. That's an irreducible number. The outcome
depends logically on all those components. Now, there are only 10^80 atoms
in the universe.' So, if a quantum computer can solve a problem in which
the number of calculations greately exceeds the number of atoms in the
universe, how did the computer do the calculation?
"'It's pretty clear that it wasn't by jiggling about the atoms and energy
and stuff that we see around us,' says Deutsch. 'Then where was it
performed?'
"Deutsch emphasizes again that computation is a physical process. Just as
someone using an abacus must push beads around to get an answer, a computer
must manipulate real particles--atoms or photons or what have you. And if a
computer must manipulate ;more atoms than exist in one universe to complete
a calculation, it must be drawing on the resources of many particles in a
vast web of linked universes." ~ Tim Folger, "The Best Computer in All
Possible Worlds," Discover Oct. 1995, p. 95
>
>Now there are people who say the MWH can be tested, but I didn't
>see Deutsch
>doing that in the quotes you provided.
>
>
>Now let us review the errors in the philosophical approach made by the MWH
>enthusiasts.
I don't have the patience I used to have. I am giving up on you Richard.
Simple as that. You can say and post whatever you wish. But I don't think
you are listening at all.
Have a nice day.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 21:07:03 EDT