Physical question

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:31 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:30 pm
Shitberg, go wipe yourself off somebody's ass.
What I think you need to is to follow your own advice and shut up. This post is out of your depth.
-1- wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:45 am
I don't know Shannon information
-1- wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 9:48 pm
I don't know what Shannon is, and I do have a degree in computer science.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Physical question

Post by -1- » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:34 pm

Skepdick = shitberg.

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:41 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:34 pm
Skepdick = shitberg.
Feel free to return to the discussion after you've done your homework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informati ... nformation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... nformation

Alternatively, make a fool of me...
-1- wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:19 pm
You are made a fool when the other party simply refuses to do the homework you assigned to them.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Physical question

Post by -1- » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:42 pm

Skepdick = fucking Shitberg. He fucks his own asshole with his penis made of shit.

Hrvoje
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:37 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Hrvoje » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:46 pm

- 1 -, stop offending people in this thread, or I am leaving. This is not normal conversation, OK?

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:18 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:14 pm
So while we may be able to simulate machines that act as though they are in superposition (quantum computation solves multiple problems simultaneously), we may not actually be able to make such a machine.
Such machine can and has been made. https://www.dwavesys.com/quantum-computing

They currently enjoy practical application in solving NP-complete problems using Quantum annealing and they do it in O(1) complexity.

If you are so inclined - there are number of publicly available Quantum Cloud platforms ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud-bas ... _computing ) to play with. It's still early days though and it's not as accessible as classical programming - lots of theory required to do anything useful.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:14 pm
He and I agree on multi-world ideas to overcome this but the evidence that even something is remotely 'weird' as initially interpreted about quantum phenomena are themselves wanting of a more rational explanation.
All quantum phenomena can be rationally explained as epistemic phenomena resulting from incomplete knowledge. You experience quantum phenomena in the classical universe all the time.

There's a 90% probability that your house keys are where you left them, and 10% chance that they aren't - because somebody moved them while you weren't looking. That's a wave function. In order to collapse it... you must take a measurement e.g look for your keys.

If you keys aren't where you expected to find them that suggests a hidden variable. Perhaps somebody moved them? Who and when?

Even quantum non-locality is perfectly rational. All of modern science is based on the idea of "control" that is - you can account for all the variables in your experiment. And you define "the experiment" as the confines of the lab where the observations are being performed (which is obviously - local to the observer).

But what if you can't? What if the observation is local, but it's product of hidden causal factors well beyond your lab?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Physical question

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:18 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:14 pm
So while we may be able to simulate machines that act as though they are in superposition (quantum computation solves multiple problems simultaneously), we may not actually be able to make such a machine.
Such machine can and has been made. https://www.dwavesys.com/quantum-computing

They currently enjoy practical application in solving NP-complete problems using Quantum annealing and they do it in O(1) complexity.

If you are so inclined - there are number of publicly available Quantum Cloud platforms ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud-bas ... _computing ) to play with. It's still early days though and it's not as accessible as classical programming - lots of theory required to do anything useful.
I already looked at the literal architecture designs and KNOW that these are artificial. The technique used is to enable a three valued system by using induction in a loop such that it favors the effect within the loop but attempts to deny it outside of the loop. The only way this can be done is by supercooling the system and having parts that are larger than the same components you'd get in normal transistor binary logic.

In essence, think of a coil that operates a speaker. The core is INSIDE the loop. But the effect is done by accelerating currents, a 'dynamic' information, versus a static charge. The effect occurs outside the loop and thus any CLOSE conducting material is also affected. This is what is desired to be eliminated.

But when changing currents are faster, this also heats up the conductor making it increase resistance and why the supercooling is needed for 'superconduction'. This adds a need for cooling circuitry and larger spaces between each tiny loop.

All said, the circuitry DOES allow for three values, such as a speaker coil that can either push out its core, pull in its core, or have a neutral core. This is NOT a real effect as described by the Copenhagen QM interpretation NOR of utilizing some magical link to another universe.

The Q-bit comprises at least 9 of these loops and it operates by running them in a 3 by 3 (OR 4 BY 4 for 16 loops). Then it acts as parallel loops that is more favorable to act as a 'master key' way most effective for decryption purposes. Binary logic still takes smaller space and can even mimic the effect using parallelism. It's loss is to the fact that it at least requires 2 bits that thus waste a bit as a "don't care". But it then has the advantage of treating even numbers of variables.

These types of computers cannot replace the binary architecture and actually costs more in space and energy. While it is hoped that this can be eliminated at some point, I doubt this can be realized. The idea is to hope for a material that can exist at room temperature or higher that still has the properties of superconduction.

I am skeptical and think much of this is deceptive and possibly fraudulent. It may at least serve to favor encryption/decryption factors but would only serve large corporations and governments who want to break into others' privacy. While it would help to improve creating encryption too, I still do not see this as essential other than to those in power or to those interested and funded enough for other deceptive means.
Skepdick wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:14 pm
He and I agree on multi-world ideas to overcome this but the evidence that even something is remotely 'weird' as initially interpreted about quantum phenomena are themselves wanting of a more rational explanation.
All quantum phenomena can be rationally explained as epistemic phenomena resulting from incomplete knowledge. You experience quantum phenomena in the classical universe all the time.

There's a 90% probability that your house keys are where you left them, and 10% chance that they aren't - because somebody moved them while you weren't looking. That's a wave function. In order to collapse it... you must take a measurement e.g look for your keys.

If you keys aren't where you expected to find them that suggests a hidden variable. Perhaps somebody moved them? Who and when?

Even quantum non-locality is perfectly rational. All of modern science is based on the idea of "control" that is - you can account for all the variables in your experiment. And you define "the experiment" as the confines of the lab where the observations are being performed (which is obviously - local to the observer).

But what if you can't? What if the observation is local, but it's product of hidden causal factors well beyond your lab?
I underlined the two conflicting factors related in this topic. The 'incompleteness' question is what those like Einstein, Podolky, and Rosen questioned among others against the Copenhagen interpretation that utilized the 'collapse' concept. While the statistical math is correct to be used in QM, the interpretation of a literal weirdness is unfounded. The EPR paper by these guys set up a means to 'test' this if it could be done ideally. Later, after the old guard was dead and gone, those in power of the political interests involved with the Copenhagen interpretation found utility in Bell's Theorem as a means to use the EPR to confirm or dislodge this weirdness. The experiments done using it utilize the statistic 'trick' related to the Monty Hall problem which inappropriately 'confirmed' what they wanted.

You are welcome to disagree. But if you want to challenge that, you'd have to look back to arguments I've made on this forum and elsewhere regarding the frauds used with statistics.

I'm for a muli-world interpretation but NOT for the same reasons others IN QM fields are. That is, I believe there are arguments external to QM that are valid to discuss this but that the actual phenomena interpreted by things such as the Slit Experiment are false. AS such, I still share Einstein's view he had throughout his life on this matter. We'd need to digress from this topic here and so this is all I'll say on this specifically. But it is a motivating factor to what I disagree with about the theorems that argue for computation to be sufficient to prove all reality. While I think it CAN be done at some point in principle, how I've witnessed some expect to utilize a computer program as a means to be 'empirical evidence' gets abused and/or is faulty for issues underlying the real architecture of how logic gates work.

P.S. This all relates to issues that I'm guessing your interest in 'computational complexity' is about. I study a lot of this but NOT under that distinctive title. It's a subtopic within computer logic to me and because I think the general computation needs to be understood first before dealing with efficiency, timing, or other factors within architectures. That was what I was confused about your paper thinking it is useful for philosophy in general. While I agree it is GOOD and helpful in depth, the general topic of computation suffices along with logic in general for the general philosopher's needs.

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:07 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
I already looked at the literal architecture designs and KNOW that these are artificial....
I have no idea what you mean by 'artificial'. It solves 2048 Qubit NP-hard/NP-complete problems in O(1) e.g constant time.

You can't DO that with a classical computer, no matter how you cool it.

That's all the evidence I need to know that it's not a classical machine.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
These types of computers cannot replace the binary architecture
And why should they? Classical machines do what they do just fine. The most likely way forward is a complementary design.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
and actually costs more in space and energy.
But they cost less in time!

Now you get to choose whether you want to solve a problem fast-but-expensive, or slow-but-cheap.
This literally re-defines the notion of 'tractability'.

Google uses the quantum systems for eliminating inefficiencies and local maximas in predictive models generated on classical computers.
The globally optimal solution is still executed on the classical machine but it yields 40-50% lower resource utilization.

It's one of those 'you only have to solve it once, but you have to solve it first'.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but there is such thing as a return-on-investment.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Physical question

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:07 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
I already looked at the literal architecture designs and KNOW that these are artificial....
I have no idea what you mean by 'artificial'. It solves 2048 Qubit NP-hard/NP-complete problems in O(1) e.g constant time.

You can't DO that with a classical computer, no matter how you cool it.

That's all the evidence I need to know that it's not a classical machine.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the very specific field of "Computer Complexity" and so don't approve of explanations that go beyond being able to explain here without a degree or a large digression into a course. What you are meaning is that for particular PRACTICAL reasons, you only care about the success of some set of goals of computing you prefer. I'm referring to the FACTS external to mere practice about reality. The 'non-classical' (actually understood by the classics but being ignored about the modern reinventors who prefer to think they've discovered something novel) is less realistically more efficient because it is more basic to any exclusive universe. The interpretation THAT something at the lowest most elemental level is itself multivariable (like on the quantum level) is only 'true' if other independent worlds could communicate with this one. The evidence is my skepticism. That in principle multivariables at a point is ideal doesn't make it realistically accessible. I am asserting that QM machines are only virtual and require MORE energy to utilize than our present binary architecture. The BELIEF is that we could find some ideal superconducting material but this too misunderstands what actually occurs on the quantum level.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
These types of computers cannot replace the binary architecture
And why should they? Classical machines do what they do just fine. The most likely way forward is a complementary design.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am
and actually costs more in space and energy.
But they cost less in time!
NO, they only cost less in specific goals in principle. and....

Now you get to choose whether you want to solve a problem fast-but-expensive, or slow-but-cheap.
This literally re-defines the notion of 'tractability'.

Google uses the quantum systems for eliminating inefficiencies and local maximas in predictive models generated on classical computers.
The globally optimal solution is still executed on the classical machine but it yields 40-50% lower resource utilization.

It's one of those 'you only have to solve it once, but you have to solve it first'.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but there is such thing as a return-on-investment.
... I believe the purpose of use is more nefarious and, as I already said, possibly fraudulent. It's interest by large organizations is more likely about encryption/decryption purposes uniquely, and how this can be used to both spy on the 'enemy' and to determine how to hide better FROM their 'enemies', in general.

When I said it is 'artificial', I am referring to the QM interpretation of multiple realities of one thing existing simultaneously and accessibly real in our space as being only a 'virtualized artifact' of any possible architecture. I also disagree with Deutsch's degree of optimism about knowledge. To 'know' about anything completely true about some volume of space always requires a greater sized machine to make sense of all of its particular information. OR, at least, absolute 'knowledge' of something is to literally BE that thing itself.

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:57 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the very specific field of "Computer Complexity" and so don't approve of explanations that go beyond being able to explain here without a degree or a large digression into a course.
It's hardly a large digression. It's a trivial intuition and a useful metric for efficiency with respect to a system's inputs and outputs.

Imagine that it takes you 30 minutes to cook dinner for 4; 60 minutes to cook dinner for 8, 90 minutes to cook dinner for 12, and 300 minutes to cook dinner for 40.
Then you can see a clear trend emerging and you can reasonably predict that cooking for N guests will take you N/4*30 minutes.

We say that the time-complexity of cooking for N guests is linear. As the number of guests grows - the time required grows in 1:1 proportion.

Now, imagine that it takes you 30 minutes to cook dinner for 4 guests; and it takes you 30 minutes to cook dinner for 8 guests; and 12 guests; and 200 guests; and 2000 guests.

A new kind of pattern is emerging. The time required is not a function of the number of guests.

Then we say that the time-complexity of coooking for N guests is constant e.g O(1).
No matter how many guests you are cooking for - it will take you 30 minutes.

You are a REALLY efficient chef! With respect to time anyway.
I would imagine you have a HUUUUUGE kitchen (space).

For reasons pertaining to physics (energy, efficiency, and all other things you previously mentioned). Classical computers CAN NOT solve 2048 Qubit NP-complete problems in constant time. Is the D-Wave a universal Quantum computer? No, it's not. But it is not a classical computer either.

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:15 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm
... I believe the purpose of use is more nefarious and, as I already said, possibly fraudulent. It's interest by large organizations is more likely about encryption/decryption purposes uniquely, and how this can be used to both spy on the 'enemy' and to determine how to hide better FROM their 'enemies', in general.
No... we are using it exactly for the purposes it says on the box.

Optimisation of multi-variate linear equations.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm
To 'know' about anything completely true about some volume of space always requires a greater sized machine to make sense of all of its particular information. OR, at least, absolute 'knowledge' of something is to literally BE that thing itself.
That may or may not be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression

This video deals with this

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Physical question

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:15 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:15 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm
... I believe the purpose of use is more nefarious and, as I already said, possibly fraudulent. It's interest by large organizations is more likely about encryption/decryption purposes uniquely, and how this can be used to both spy on the 'enemy' and to determine how to hide better FROM their 'enemies', in general.
No... we are using it exactly for the purposes it says on the box.

Optimisation of multi-variate linear equations.
Distinction without an actual difference. My point is that it is being 'sold' to us as though it DOES have this quantum 'magic' when it is not magic. The particular use of it is potentially more hazardous if (and when) it is in the wrong hands.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 pm
To 'know' about anything completely true about some volume of space always requires a greater sized machine to make sense of all of its particular information. OR, at least, absolute 'knowledge' of something is to literally BE that thing itself.
That may or may not be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression

This video deals with this
If you think that the future uses of lossless compression using this tech will be useful to the masses SHOULD they find an efficient quantum computer, I'd think again. Whose interest is it to serve best? At present, AND IN THE FUTURE, the use will be to favor proprietary powers of corporate interests and large powerful political organs most preferentially of strong ethnic identity interests who want to encrypt their own communications while having the power to decrypt the masses unnoticed as a means to spy and use redirection and manipulation on outsiders.

Even the most independent intellectual will be isolated and prevented from defeating what will be used against us when it can be successfully prevented from getting into the hands of everyone equally.

EDIT: fixed a forgotten tag for quoting properly.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hrvoje
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:37 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Hrvoje » Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:18 am

The lossless compression I am most impressed with is the one by which the whole organism gets encoded within one molecule (of DNA). OK, maybe all information is not there, maybe some portion of that valuable information is in the ribosomes, RNA polymerase, chaperones, and elsewhere, and it never originated from DNA, but still...
And despite of that great compression, still there is enough redundancy in that information sufficient for an efficient damage repair. Fascinating.

With respect to Deutsch, I don't agree with him when he says that "the dog knows nothing", and he seems to be convinced that the ability to leave the native planet is the confirmation of superiority of intelligence of certain species. OK, that's what a lot of people think, calling the species intelligent only if it can explore space, but to me the ultimate proof of intelligence is to create general artificial intelligence, and more general task, artificial life. That is, intelligent, self reproducible entities.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Physical question

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:15 am

Hrvoje wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:18 am
The lossless compression I am most impressed with is the one by which the whole organism gets encoded within one molecule (of DNA). OK, maybe all information is not there, maybe some portion of that valuable information is in the ribosomes, RNA polymerase, chaperones, and elsewhere, and it never originated from DNA, but still...
And despite of that great compression, still there is enough redundancy in that information sufficient for an efficient damage repair. Fascinating.

With respect to Deutsch, I don't agree with him when he says that "the dog knows nothing", and he seems to be convinced that the ability to leave the native planet is the confirmation of superiority of intelligence of certain species. OK, that's what a lot of people think, calling the species intelligent only if it can explore space, but to me the ultimate proof of intelligence is to create general artificial intelligence, and more general task, artificial life. That is, intelligent, self reproducible entities.
Except, I'm guessing, when those self-replicators are viruses?

Lossless compression is only functional if the ELEMENTS of information have repeats in patterns for a particular resulting whole. I'm not sure how it relates to DNA because it contains a lot of old information ('junk-DNA') that has its 'index' headers deleted but keeps the content of the 'files'. This is exactly why we 'defrag' computer drives. For biology, this is 'excessive' but has the evolutionary advantage of enabling re-enabling some of those old 'files' should something environmental triggers them back into use. The nature of repeating full copies of the DNA that acts as the information of the WHOLE but to EACH cell, is also over-redundant. Each cell only uses a very tiny percentage of the DNA at its core. This is definitely useful but NOT efficient and so is NOT 'compression'.

[Oh, by the way, 'defragging' is "lossless" compression. Besides just moving all related content together, it removes excess 'index/table-of-content' links of many parts of a file spread all over the place. Also, that use above on reusing old information in DNA (which is never 'defragged') is called 'Epigenetics" if anyone is interested.]

Skepdick
Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Physical question

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:31 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:15 am
Each cell only uses a very tiny percentage of the DNA at its core. This is definitely useful but NOT efficient and so is NOT 'compression'.
That's a reductionist view on the matter. Holistically it's far better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The cell is part of the whole. The whole needs it. To optimize for cell-efficiency at the expense of organism-efficiency is to miss the forrest for the trees. Economies of scale...
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:15 am
Oh, by the way, 'defragging' is "lossless" compression.
If it's not reversible - it's not lossless.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests