3 ms·

I like this sentence... > The one that produced an observer was observed. I wonder if it applies in other contexts, specifically, er, quantum decoherence?

by jaekwon 12y ago

calinet6 12y ago
I was just thinking how similar the anthropic principle is to the general concept behind quantum computing (to the best of my limited knowledge: create a quantum superposition of states and the one which solves the problem is the solution). Uncanny.
- cscheid 12y ago
  That's very much not what quantum computing is about, sorry. It does not do exponential parallelism by trying many things at once. What it does do is create exponentially many paths, while some of which interfere with one another destructively. When you observe the system, then, some paths will have probability zero even though they have non-zero complex amplitudes associated with it. Scott Aaronson's "Limits of Quantum Computers" to the rescue: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Com...
  - calinet6 12y ago
    It was indeed a very rough analogy. Not saying we can equate them by any means. Great to learn more about quantum computing though, thank you for the clarification and the link!
HanyouHottie 12y ago
You need to be careful with this line of reasoning if you mean what I think you mean. I've found that when speaking with laypeople about quantum decoherence, a very common misconception comes from the use of the word 'observer' (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ ). If you say "A quantum system can be in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed when it's observed.", a layperson can easily interpret that to mean that a sentient being needs to look at and take note of the system for it to count as being observed, when in fact all that is required is that an external particle interact with the system and carry away some information (energy). There's nothing special about humans (and their ability to observe) in this context.
- calinet6 12y ago
  Yes. Observer in my post above specifically refers to a sentient being; observer in quantum computing specifically does not. However given the context, the two are (very) roughly similar. One could (again, very roughly) think of the universe as a giant quantum computer solving for the variables that lead to sentience. The observers are inside the system in that case, but it's the same idea: create every possible state and select for the solution that solves the problem. Only an analogy, of course.

I like this sentence... > The one that produced an observer was observed. I wonder if it applies in other contexts, specifically, er, quantum decoherence?

by jaekwon 12y ago

I like this sentence... > The one that produced an observer was observed. I wonder if it applies in other contexts, specifically, er, quantum decoherence?

calinet6 12y ago

I was just thinking how similar the anthropic principle is to the general concept behind quantum computing (to the best of my limited knowledge: create a quantum superposition of states and the one which solves the problem is the solution). Uncanny.

cscheid 12y ago
That's very much not what quantum computing is about, sorry. It does not do exponential parallelism by trying many things at once. What it does do is create exponentially many paths, while some of which interfere with one another destructively. When you observe the system, then, some paths will have probability zero even though they have non-zero complex amplitudes associated with it. Scott Aaronson's "Limits of Quantum Computers" to the rescue: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Com...
- calinet6 12y ago
  It was indeed a very rough analogy. Not saying we can equate them by any means. Great to learn more about quantum computing though, thank you for the clarification and the link!

HanyouHottie 12y ago

You need to be careful with this line of reasoning if you mean what I think you mean. I've found that when speaking with laypeople about quantum decoherence, a very common misconception comes from the use of the word 'observer' (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ ). If you say "A quantum system can be in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed when it's observed.", a layperson can easily interpret that to mean that a sentient being needs to look at and take note of the system for it to count as being observed, when in fact all that is required is that an external particle interact with the system and carry away some information (energy). There's nothing special about humans (and their ability to observe) in this context.

calinet6 12y ago
Yes. Observer in my post above specifically refers to a sentient being; observer in quantum computing specifically does not. However given the context, the two are (very) roughly similar. One could (again, very roughly) think of the universe as a giant quantum computer solving for the variables that lead to sentience. The observers are inside the system in that case, but it's the same idea: create every possible state and select for the solution that solves the problem. Only an analogy, of course.