Re: Physical question
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:31 pm
What I think you need to is to follow your own advice and shut up. This post is out of your depth.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
What I think you need to is to follow your own advice and shut up. This post is out of your depth.
Feel free to return to the discussion after you've done your homework.
Such machine can and has been made. https://www.dwavesys.com/quantum-computingScott 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.
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.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.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:18 amSuch machine can and has been made. https://www.dwavesys.com/quantum-computingScott 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.
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 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.Skepdick wrote: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.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.
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 have no idea what you mean by 'artificial'. It solves 2048 Qubit NP-hard/NP-complete problems in O(1) e.g constant time.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am I already looked at the literal architecture designs and KNOW that these are artificial....
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 These types of computers cannot replace the binary architecture
But they cost less in time!
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:07 amI have no idea what you mean by 'artificial'. It solves 2048 Qubit NP-hard/NP-complete problems in O(1) e.g constant time.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:28 am I already looked at the literal architecture designs and KNOW that these are artificial....
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.
NO, they only cost less in specific goals in principle. and....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 These types of computers cannot replace the binary architecture
But they cost less in time!
... 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.
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.
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.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.
No... we are using it exactly for the purposes it says on the box.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.
That may or may not be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compressionScott 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.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:15 pmNo... we are using it exactly for the purposes it says on the box.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.
Optimisation of multi-variate linear equations.
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.That may or may not be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compressionScott 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.
This video deals with this
Except, I'm guessing, when those self-replicators are viruses?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.
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.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'.
If it's not reversible - it's not lossless.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:15 am Oh, by the way, 'defragging' is "lossless" compression.