4 ms·

True. Quantum behavior is computing linear algebra ever since the Big Bang, and we came accross to discover this fact 15e9 years later.

tsimionescu 4y ago
That's not a good example, as it's very hard to call particles following the laws of physics "a computation" - what would be the computer in this case? What is the program? A much better example is the machinery inside every living cell that is interpreting the DNA or RNA to produce certain proteins - there, it's much clearer there is a computational process happening. Certain specific structures inside the nucleus are the computer, and the DNA molecule is the program they are following. We even know that you can change the program and get predictable, different behavior.
- 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
  How is it not? Quantum Mechanics and quantum field theory applies everywhere except for the black holes. Human can even harness the power by building quantum computer by that. So here you tried to deny the exist of quantum computing paradigm, a completely different computation approach?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, are "computing" how much electricity passes through them. The entire system of transistors arranged into logical gates arranged into a processor is doing computation of the program written in memory, but the subcomponents are only following the simple laws of physics. In a quantum computer, the same is true - the computer itself may be running Shor'a algorithm, but each individual qubit is simply doing the few things that the laws of physics allow it to do.
    - thom 4y ago
      I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon? (I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).
        3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        Well. FYI, unitary transformation, creation and annihilation operator, etc.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Are these physical objects? Do they have mass, energy, volume, a position or speed, charge, color charge, weak hyper charge, spin etc?
        3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        The operation of adding and subtracting per se in classical computers also lacking these physical properties. If you use this as your counterargument, namely classical computer can compute without the inherent operation owning a physical property, then you left yourself with no ground of saying that quantum computing is invalid. You better check your logic.
        thom 4y ago
        I have no idea, I’m just saying you can conceive of physical phenomena being the subjective experience of existing within a computed environment. If, on the other hand, the computation happens within the physical substrate of the thing it’s computing… that seems weird to me.
- jamesrom 4y ago
  Have you verified if the particles in your CPU are following the laws of physics and doing computation as you read this?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    What do you mean by "verified"? We are discussing what is ultimately a matter of philosophy - "what is a useful definition of computation". I am claiming that the model of the electron and other particles, and how they interact to form an electrical circuit with transistors, and how these electrical circuits react to current when in the pattern we call "logical gates" do not conform to what is normally understood by "computation". I am also claiming that the ensemble formed from these logical gates does fit the concept of computation, that you couldn't derive its behavior directly from innate physical laws - the behavior is governed by the program it is manipulating, and can be changed. Finally, I am claiming that the living cell is more similar to our CPU than to the electrical circuit or moving electrons in the way it processes DNA to produce various proteins.

tsimionescu 4y ago

That's not a good example, as it's very hard to call particles following the laws of physics "a computation" - what would be the computer in this case? What is the program? A much better example is the machinery inside every living cell that is interpreting the DNA or RNA to produce certain proteins - there, it's much clearer there is a computational process happening. Certain specific structures inside the nucleus are the computer, and the DNA molecule is the program they are following. We even know that you can change the program and get predictable, different behavior.

3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
How is it not? Quantum Mechanics and quantum field theory applies everywhere except for the black holes. Human can even harness the power by building quantum computer by that. So here you tried to deny the exist of quantum computing paradigm, a completely different computation approach?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, are "computing" how much electricity passes through them. The entire system of transistors arranged into logical gates arranged into a processor is doing computation of the program written in memory, but the subcomponents are only following the simple laws of physics. In a quantum computer, the same is true - the computer itself may be running Shor'a algorithm, but each individual qubit is simply doing the few things that the laws of physics allow it to do.
  - thom 4y ago
    I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon? (I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).
      - 3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        Well. FYI, unitary transformation, creation and annihilation operator, etc.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Are these physical objects? Do they have mass, energy, volume, a position or speed, charge, color charge, weak hyper charge, spin etc?
        3g4o53g4o5 4y ago
        The operation of adding and subtracting per se in classical computers also lacking these physical properties. If you use this as your counterargument, namely classical computer can compute without the inherent operation owning a physical property, then you left yourself with no ground of saying that quantum computing is invalid. You better check your logic.
      - thom 4y ago
        I have no idea, I’m just saying you can conceive of physical phenomena being the subjective experience of existing within a computed environment. If, on the other hand, the computation happens within the physical substrate of the thing it’s computing… that seems weird to me.
jamesrom 4y ago
Have you verified if the particles in your CPU are following the laws of physics and doing computation as you read this?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  What do you mean by "verified"? We are discussing what is ultimately a matter of philosophy - "what is a useful definition of computation". I am claiming that the model of the electron and other particles, and how they interact to form an electrical circuit with transistors, and how these electrical circuits react to current when in the pattern we call "logical gates" do not conform to what is normally understood by "computation". I am also claiming that the ensemble formed from these logical gates does fit the concept of computation, that you couldn't derive its behavior directly from innate physical laws - the behavior is governed by the program it is manipulating, and can be changed. Finally, I am claiming that the living cell is more similar to our CPU than to the electrical circuit or moving electrons in the way it processes DNA to produce various proteins.