[MD] Quantum computing

[Horse]

Hi Magnus

I've been thinking about what you've been saying recently and thought I 
might add a few comments.
I've chopped out big chunks of previous posts as I only really want to 
address a couple of main issues.

Magnus Berg wrote:

1)
> In my view of the MoQ, there are no fuzzy borders. Fuzziness is bad. How can 
> even the MoQ include fuzziness if all of reality is made of quality events? Each 
> QE is between two patterns of the same type, right? So how on earth *can* 
> fuzziness arise from that? I thought you understood (and perhaps even agreed 
> with) the dimensional view of the levels? And that view removes fuzziness.

If by fuzziness you mean a blurring of definitions or borders between 
the levels then I would tend to agree as I also see the levels as 
discrete and in opposition or, as you put it, orthogonal.
However, if you mean fuzziness, in the technical sense, then I disagree 
with you. I'm not sure if we may have had this conversation some years 
back but I see the mathematical/logical sense of fuzziness as 
fundamental to the MoQ as it removes the Either/Or distinction in favour 
of the Also/And view. In other words it is the negation of the law of 
the excluded middle.
For me this gels perfectly with the MoQ view that any "thing" that you 
care to mention is a conglomeration of static patterns of value with a 
relationship with DQ. The degree to which each level inheres is a fuzzy 
measure as opposed to a binary measure.

2)
> Ok, we disagree completely here. I say that scale doesn't matter at all. Why 
> can't you see that a dimensional view of the levels means that we don't have to 
> decide where level boundaries should be drawn based on scale? We can treat a 
> collection of cells as a society *and* as a biological animal. We don't have to 
> choose! And we don't have to get those fuzzy borders.
> If scale counts all that much that you seem to imply, how can it be that the 
> inorganic level works on all scales - atoms, rocks, planets, solar systems, 
> galaxies and galaxy clusters - but the social level is confined to, what 
> exactly, tribes, cities and countries?

3)
 > In my view, animals are societies of organs, but that doesn't mean
 > they lose their biological value. If you use your level rule above, it
 > would end up in the social level, but that might not be the best way
 > to describe an animal. (In fact, I'd even raise it to the intellectual
 > level. Please read back a few posts in this thread to see why.)

Your reference to "societies" of cells is the second point I'd like to 
bring up.
The way that you use the term in a MoQ context is, I think, inaccurate 
as it tends to break the evolutionary and hierarchical structure of the MoQ.
Something that I brought up a while back but which didn't seem to create 
too much enthusiasm is a network view within the MoQ. As I know you have 
a strong background in computing I though that I might run it past you 
to see if it makes any sense to you.
What you seem to be referring to when you talk about "societies" of 
cells etc. could be better thought of as networks of cells. In fact from 
the quantum level up the term network would appear to be a better used 
term. A network at it's most basic level is a set of nodes and their 
connections so think of an atom as a network of quantum particles, a 
molecule as a network of atoms, a cell as a network of molecules (and a 
lot of other stuff but basically a molecular network), a body as a 
network of organs, a society as a network of bodies, beliefs etc. and so 
on right up to the intellectual level.
Using the computing analogy you can look at complex structures as 
networks of (sub)networks with different interfacing methods and 
protocols to bridge the MoQ level structure.
Above you mention the idea of scaling and there are plenty of analogies 
within the network view which would accommodate this. Think of wide area 
networks, internetworks etc.
I won't go into it any further at the moment as I thought I'd first see 
if it strikes a chord with you.

Let me know if you have any thoughts about this

Cheers


Horse