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