[MD] Quantum computing

[ian glendinning]

Hi Magnus,

I hadn't though of taking the orthogonality metaphor that far. Some
rules of inter-dependency, yes, to capture the fact that they are not
independent, but I'm not sure the geometrical sense of orthogonality
(and skewing axes) helps ?

In the previous exchange you had set my mind thinking about the
patterns (SPOV's) as distribution functions in the space we'd just
defined .... but the "values" on our axes are of course qualitative
and complex so I'm not sure there is much milage in pushing the idea.
Combining qualitative properties like colour with this set of axes put
me in mind of Wilbur's spiral model. But I'm just drivelling out loud
.... sorry.

Ian

On 2/20/07, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> Ian
>
> ian glendinning wrote:
> > Wow Magnus, n-Tuples twice in a month ! ;-)
> >
> > I have to say, I agree with your "dimensions" rather than simple
> > (one-dimensional) "layers" view of MoQ. All "things" can be
> > categorised on these four "aspects" - so placed as points and patterns
> > (arrangements of points) in that four dimensional space - evolutionary
> > time and change are another axis probably.
> >
> > The thing I would warn though is not to think of them as entirely
> > orthogonal - there is some level of independence, but there is also
> > "dependent arising" to use a Buddhist term that links them and their
> > causal relationships - causation is not one-way either. So, these axes
> > are distinct, but not strictly orthogonal.
>
> I think I see what you mean. Describing on object as an n-tuple suggests you can
>  say it has only intellectual value (like {0,0,0,17} ), but that's of course
> not possible since all levels are dependent on the lower levels. So if the
> supporting lower level patterns disappear, so will the higher level pattern.
>
> But would that make the system non-orthogonal? I would rather add some kind of
> constraint to describe the special dependency in the system. Making the axes
> non-orthogonal, i.e. tilting them, would raise an impossible issue about how
> much to tilt them. It's not as if you can use the coordinate-system to calculate
> anything anyway, or?
>
> > As you say yourself, a certain level of evolution and complexity has
> > to occur in any one layer before anything can arise in the next. Those
> > (static) patterns of complexity support the higher layer, but do not
> > constrain its further evolution. I think it all fits reality
> > beautifully.
>
> Me too.
>
>        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/
>