X-Message-Number: 11589
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #11584 - #11587
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:44:54 +1000 (EST)

Hi Mike again,

You haven't answered my objection at all.

I will also add that so far as I know there is no experimental evidence
for the many-worlds interpretation of QM either --- it's just an
interpretation. And as an interpretation it comes perilously close to 
the attempted interpretations (in the past) of phenomena such as gravity:
OK, so we have a way of imagining how something may be true, but that is
no more than an aid to our imagination, while the physical effect goes
on as before.

The possibility of a quantum computer is particularly interesting because
such a computer will NOT behave as a sequential Turing machine. In cases
in which there are very many possibilities, a quantum computer works 
at about sqrt(N) while an ordinary machine works at N... but not as a
parallel computer. The possibility of other nonTuring machines has
already been raised (please remember my previous posting on this subject);
I am very interested to see if all the efforts physicists have put into
quantum computing become practically successful. 

As for getting the same results, that is not a complete solution to
whether or not they are identical. Turing machines are supposed to work in
a certain way, while quantum computers work quite differently: as if they
could write many different symbols on the same location of the same tape
at the same time. That property seems fundamental to quantum computing,
not just a minor issue.

			Best and long long life to all,
			   (and with long life we learn answers to these
			    puzzles, too)

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11589