Cartoon aided design: The lighter side of computing

Product Information

For QM to turn probabilistic the way it is described in its axiomatic description, it is sufficient if only the measurement rule is made probabilistic. The system evolution, represented here via the updates, could very well be deterministic. In QM, the Schrodinger evolution is deterministic anyway. Overall, (1) is absolutely great to have. This property by itself does motivate me to “pre-pone” my studies of density matrices to an earlier date (even if it won’t be right away—not right this week or next week!). I am writing in reference to the description in ppnl #6, and not to quantum Darwinism as such. I didn’t know about qD, and just now rapidly browsed the Wiki article on it, that’s all.)

I think there is a more basic problem here, and it is the fact that the automaton has “a set of rules of physics that is classically deterministic.” By those words, I take it that ppnl does not mean a deterministic but chaotic process underlying those rules,… So the phrase “Damned with faint praise” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise) came to mind when I read Dr Motl’s post.I can’t really wrap my head around quantum Darwinism. I don’t understand pointer states or why they are needed. I am clueless about redundant encoding. Well I’m not a physicist so not surprising. But it is frustrating. I don’t quite understand right away, but never mind. (I don’t want to put you through the trouble of explaining something to me at a time that I am not even ready to understand it!) To be fair I’m not really sure what his position is since he banned me for disagreeing without discussing it.

fred #90: Yes, of course. But Bell’s Theorem tells us that such a simulation of our universe on a classical digital computer would necessarily be a nonlocal one (that is, the simulation would involve rapid signalling between memory cells corresponding to faraway events, violating the causal structure of the spacetime, even if we, living inside the universe, never actually experienced such signalling).Hwold #3: In principle, according to QM, you can see quantum interference with a physical system of any size, as long as it’s sufficiently isolated from its environment (so that it rotates unitarily through complex vector space rather than collapsing). As for the saying we were riffing off—“it’s not the size that matters, it’s the motion through the ocean”—maybe I should let someone explain that who has less of an academic reputation to uphold? 😉 A particularly wonderful aspect (as it seems to me) regarding works of Ernst, Martinis, Kalai, and Kuprov is that there’s no fundamental contradiction in regarding all of these works as excellent, and foreseeing too that the hopes of all these workers— including even some of the hopes of quantum supremacists— can be substantially realized in coming decades… albeit with a few adjustments!🙂 I realise parents can be embarrased, in previouas generations superposition was done in private and entanglement was practically a taboo, the end result is people too embarrassed to talk about real problems, 58.567% of all left handed american men can’t sustain an entanglement long enough to satisfy their spouses. Gentzen’s remarks on density matrices (#24) are well-conceived and clearly stated (as they seem to me). Thanks! But it just doesn’t matter. However they talk about it and whatever they use to represent it their complex numbers must in a deep sense be the same as ours.