[MD] Quantum computing

[ian glendinning]

Hi Magnus, welcome back ...

I'm a taker.
I've had Quantum Computing in my blog for several years now, and
totally agree the fundamental understanding of information processing
is very close to our metaphysical interests here. (My 2005 conference
paper referred to it too.)

The stuff that's exciting me most is here.
http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/bcs_cmg.htm
Because these guys (like David Deutsch) have noticed the fundamental
significance, as well as the processing power potential. The
relationships to the Anthropic Principle(s) and the re-writing of
earlier quantum mechanics laws are all there, but the maths is too
hard for the layman like me.

If you search for Quantum Computing, Quantum Information and Qubits on
my blog, you'll find many links.
www.psybertron.org

Looking forward to further correspondence on this.
For the moment, day job calls.
Ian


On 2/13/07, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> Hi there
>
> I'd better start by reintroducing myself. I'm Magnus Berg from Sweden and has
> been lurking here for so long that I guess most of you here have never seen me
> post. On the other hand, I recognize many of the current posters so I guess some
> of you will remember me.
>
> Anyway, as some of you might remember, I'm a computer guy and I just saw that a
> new quantum computer is being demoed today. I'm afraid I was unable to attend
> the demo physically, but their site is very interesting, and pretty MoQ:ish
> actually.
>
> Just read this (from http://www.dwavesys.com/index.php?page=quantum-computing)
> (my *emphasis*)
>
> "We now know that Turing was only partially correct. Not all computers are
> equivalent. His work was based on an assumption — that computation and
> information were abstract entities, divorced from the rules of physics governing
> the behavior of the computer itself.
>
> One of the most important developments in modern science is the realization that
> information (and computation) can never exist in the abstract. *Information is
> always tied to the physical stuff upon which it is written.* What is possible to
> compute is completely determined by the rules of physics.
>
> Turing's work, and conventional computer science, are only valid if a computer
> obeys the rules of Newtonian physics — the set of rules that apply to large and
> hot things, like baseballs and humans. If elements of a computer behave
> according to different rules, such as the rules of QM, this assumption fails and
> many very interesting possibilities emerge."
>
>
> When quantum computers become more common, I think they will start provoking
> philosophical questions in much the same lines we're doing here.
>
> Any takers?
>
>        Magnus
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>