[MD] Quantum computing

[Ron Kulp]

Magnus,
I am reading "When Harlie was one" by David Gerrold about Quantum
computing.
You would find it fascinating. The computer is designed to have 144
variations
Between 1 and zero using fluid pressure thereby allowing the computer to
make 
value judgements through averaging the input. It used "branch" like
structures
In a sort of data pachinco game I think the tree analolgy case gave was
about 
Structure not logical origin. Every logical structure requires an
assumed 0
Point a "point of beginning" how can concentric circles grow to allow
for new data?
It needs space to increase also it is not self contained either.
Branching works
In the fractile set sense that it expands inward as it expands outward
concentically depending
On the "value". it is infinate yet self contained. If the MOQ set was
established
Of 4 different value sets representing 4 differing levels ideally you
could
Write an MOQ program which would give you an MOQ value for any input.
Giving
You your 5th level the ability to place a value on value and increase
the accuracy.


-Ron 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Berg
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:05 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum computing

David and Case

> dmb says:
> Yes, I have thought it through and in fact I specifically had desktop 
> metaphors in mind. This is the worst of the worst. I'm convinced that 
> computer lingo was mostly invented by autistic dudes who relate to 
> machines a lot more than to people. Silicon Valley desperately needs 
> some English majors.

The worst of the worst? That makes it sound like anyone could come up
with a better one any day? Do you have one handy?

And computer lingo, just like any other business, is of course filled
with lots of terms to make the language usable when discussing that
business. Not sure why you must insult us just for doing what everybody
else does.

> dmb says:
> Good point. But there is also a very real sense in which analogies can

> be right or wrong. We've all encountered them on standardized tests. 
> Metaphors are a little more complicated, but these too can be 
> misleading or helpful, good or bad. In this case, of course, the 
> debate is not just about which image we like best. It about the best 
> way to imagine a complex abstract concept, namely the evolution of 
> everything, of the universe. As you know, I'm saying concentric 
> circles present a picture of the whole with nothing outside while the 
> tree fails because it requires an enviroment in which to grow, 
> suggesting that the universe expands within another universe outside 
> itself. This simply defies the meaning of the word "universe". It
suggests there is a pre-existing space in which space exists and that's
just goofy.
> Thus the metaphor just doesn't work.
> 
> Did you notice how Case had to pretend I was making an argument for a 
> staircase or a ladder in order avoid this point? Why? Because 
> staircases and ladders also need a pre-existing enviroment and so the 
> switch inserts the same mistake we find with trees. These are all 
> flawed for the same reason but the concentric circles rightly suggest
no such externals.


But concentric circles do suggest that outer levels include all of the
inner levels, and as Case and Platt discussed with a cell, this isn't
true.

...which is why I'm gonna stick to my orthogonal dimensional view. It
doesn't suggest anything, other than that they are completely
orthogonal.

	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/