From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 12:17:00 PDT
To: Ray Cromwell <rjc@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: GUT and NP
In-Reply-To: <199407270329.AA19374@access3.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9407271323.A17279-0100000@xmission>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Ray Cromwell wrote:
> 1) continuum phenomena are real and space is not merely quantized
> at a level which is undetectable by experiment (just because
> physics models it as a continuum doesn't mean it is so)
true.
> 2) all of this precision actually makes a difference
true.

>    For instance, at the level of brain chemistry, who cares
> about quantum precision when thermal noises will swamp it anyway?
> (the Penrose argument even goes as far as assuming quantum gravity, a force
> pitifully weak, as a signficant factor)
What does that have to do with the above?

>    One of the reasons digital manipulation became popular was 
> because analog data was too prone to error. Why will a quantum
> computer, which seems even more sensitive to external perturbation,
> be any different?
Are you trying to say that things have to be digital to have noise 
imunity?  If so, you are totally wrong.  Examples abound from analog 
elctronics specifically transmission.

>   And regardless of whether quantum computers work or not, they are
> still algorithmic if they can be simulated (however slowly) by
> a turing machine. It's a rigorous mathematical definition.  Claiming
Sure, I never said otherwise, just that it is conceivable that some 
continum phenomina can't be described algorithmicly AT ALL.
> otherwise uses algorithm in a manner different than was intended. 
> It's like the way Ludwig Plutonium solves all those famous problems
> in sci.math by assuming different definitions of primality, etc.
> Quantum computers might be faster than classical computers, but
> non-algorithmic, I don't think so.
Hmmm, argument by plutonium?  Try again.

Berzerk.