The Quantum Supremacy by Kyle Miller

Dear Kyle Miller,

I enjoyed reading your essay very much. It is full of interesting things and it is very beautifully and skill-fully written. I don't agree with everything you said but you said it so nicely I don't really want to argue and give the impression that there was anything I didn't like about the essay itself. However.....

Although reductionism is very useful, not all control of pattern generation in the "material" universe is best explained at the smallest scale, in my opinion. Ecology is an area of biology where the interconnections of whole species and population dynamics are considered, rather than the function of individual organisms or biochemistry. Many things can not be understood by looking at the parts alone.

Perhaps in physics too the interconnection and relationships of patterns may be seen as being more relevant to the ongoing creation of the universe than an individual particle's habits. I'm enthusiastic about the potential of the big picture, while appreciating what reductionism has already given us; understanding more about nature and enabling us to develop modern technology. That's not a criticism of the essay but just my opinion on something relevant to the content.

I hope you get lots of appreciative readers. I really like your writing, you have a lovely way with words. Good luck in the competition.

Kyle,

I enjoyed your scalar quest. It's like my own metaphysical sojourn.

You end with one of my favorite poems.

Jim

Re-read your essay and I enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is so very well written, full of beautifully expressed ideas.

I found the quantum computer universe creating the computer, in its image, an amusing idea. I think it was also probably an intentionally provocative suggestion.

I really hope lots more people read this and like it as much as I do.

Kyle

You make a good case that reductionist thinking and analysis can only take us so far. What do you think could be the solution .... how do we break out of that problem-solving approach and find a more integative solution? Do we just wait and hope that string theory can grow into being a full solution?

Thank you

Dirk

Dear Kyle,

Love your essay. There is very little for me to disagree with in it. I've not been looking to find fault with it but just something debatable.

Kyle Miller wrote re. LSD: "How it affects a certain user is a function of their brain and their surroundings, however, the efficacy of the drug can only be explained by an appeal to a more metaphysical line of reasoning. Moments after the Big Bang, the universe came to be filled with an asymmetrical abundance of matter, rather than anti-matter. Teleology might offer an account of the universe where LSD, being the "ultimate forbidden fruit," is the final cause-hence fostering many episodes of original sin under the stars."

That is well written, clever and amusing. However, you have said "can only be explained..." and then given an account of the Big bang. You have in this circumstance taken Big bang as fact. Is it fact? What if that cosmological curtain of EM radiation is not the material content of the universe shown to us? It might be more like the magician's curtain or cloak that obscures the truth, rather than revealing it. Then isn't our accepted model of the universe founded upon the deception?

Some might think that rather than replaying the error built into human beings (by Big Bang creation event), taking hallucinogens is an attempt to explore the uncharted territory beyond the confines of normal sensory perception. I can recall the very enthusiastic lectures, on the effects of various natural hallucinogenic agents, including a certain cactus, when I was at university many years ago. It wasn't a subject that I perused by personal experimentation but interesting non the less. The malleability of the perception of reality is a clue that what we experience is no more than an internally generated fabrication. Formed from processing of the data obtained by interacting with with the cloak of potential sensory data filling space.

Hi Kyle,

I agree the Big Bang is a great story. With Inflation its a very complex and well developed theory accounting for a lot of observations. However despite that I also think it is terrible, costly and most likely untrue.

There is more matter than antimatter. There does also seem to be a lot of 'not matter', what ever its called. Like the fish content of the ocean, matter seems to be widely distributed in patches, with a lot of "emptiness" in between (However it is described eg. Higgs field, quantum vacuum seething with virtual particles, aether, the vacuum of space, through which photons travel). The'not matter'is also very important.

There are cultures that use hallucinogens to obtain a religious trance where they have access to alternative knowledge or feel in touch with their Gods. That could also be regarded as their function (giving the teleological cause), if one thinks that the effects are anything more than a biochemically induced malfunction. Not as entertaining as your scenario though.

Nice to know you have read the comments here. I appreciated your reply. Georgina

Kyle,

More interesting than whether LSD was created to put forbidden knowledge into the hands of man, so that he could continue his error and downfall; or whether it was put into the hands of man so that he could have alternative knowledge, giving insight into the nature of experienced reality (that can be likened to the spiritual experiences of a shaman using a natural hallucinogen) is not so interesting as the question why you chose to introduce a teleological argument. Is it just irony? Or provocation for those who believe in intelligent design or a subtle joke that they are unlikely to understand?

Darwin's enlightened was to realise that forms are not perfectly created for their purpose. The seemingly harmonious and well adapted forms of nature have been shaped by death. Which prunes the tree of life leaving only the survivors. The survivors being the ones best able (or fortunate enough) to survive.The purpose of penicillin was not to be an antibiotic for people.It was an "accident of nature" that permitted a mould to survive and by surviving it become an accidental discovery.

LSD though is different because it was deliberately developed, with its form matching its purpose unlike natural substances.Which serve a purpose but are not created for that purpose. Perhaps rather than being created in the Big Bang and preordained it could be the product of man's free will, an expression of his curiosity and inventiveness, which are characteristic traits of human beings. Without full determinism of the Big Bang mankind has free will to create LSD, Extasy and the like, free will to ingest them (and break the Law) or not and free will to decide whether it is sin, or a religious or spiritual experience, or benign exploration of alternative states of consciousness, or enjoyment for enjoyments sake without any moral connotations.

Granted its not so much fun as an explanation for LSDs existence and it doesn't explain the predominance of matter rather than antimatter in the universe. If I was a gambler I would think it a pretty safe bet that LSD is not the cause. Keeping an open mind I'll just say -if- Big Bang theory is true ( while thinking it a safe bet that it is not) then you could just be right.

Hi Kyle,

I don't really understand your reply. Do you mean that the purpose of DMT receptors in the human body (which work with endogenous DMT )is so that we can abuse DMT and have alternative reality, religious type, experiences and, like with the LSD example, the universe is as it is to ensure that happens? I'm sorry if you are being completely serious, I don't mean any offence, but it seems ironic to me and a good demonstration of the fallibility of the intelligent design argument.

Re. Earth Sun or Moon ?: IMO If looking out from Hubble then it is the centre of the observed universe. As the observer is the centre of the universe he/she or it observes. Unless, of course, out of one's head on a hallucinogen induced trip.

Kyle,

that last sentence was not a personal remark in case you are in doubt. It was only referring to the experience of depersonalisation, out of body experience, loss of sensation of bodily boundaries, and perceived distortion of space, time and relationships of things, that hallucinogens can induce in an (any)observer. Georgina

Hi Kyle, Georgina,

One aspect that arises with LSD is "relative degrees of reality". While the inexperienced are wont to use words like 'illusion' and 'hallucination', the experienced may judge the experience to be a 'higher degree', in the same way that most of us judge the awake state as a 'higher degree of reality' than the dream state. As with most subjective aspects of consciousness, this is not very subject to testing, but for physicists who have experimented with and experienced LSD, it can be *the* major issue. [They don't call it 'expanded' consciousness for nothing.]

Kyle your metaphor of the material structure of the molecule being "the teleological cause for the predominance of matter in the universe" is metaphysically poetic.

As for the "world as quantum computer" Robert McEachern just posted a comment on Dan Bruiger's thread: "Nothing in the universe, including the universe itself, has a large enough memory capacity to store this amount of information "symbolically". But the universe can do it "non-symbolically", by merely being itself. In other words, it is an analog computer, not a digital one. And it is its own analog. It "predicts" all its future activity by simply doing it. Thus, the prediction and the event are one and the same thing"

In other words, it's analog, but it's not "computing", it just *is*. I've said almost exactly the same thing a number of times, so of course I agree completely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Kyle,

Interesting. The interplay of all of the neurotransmitters is interesting too. Do you really think the chemical DMT was produced by the Big Bang in order for us to be able to integrate impulses and internal representations? If you mean including awareness of "the universe" its very neat. Bother! now it sounds too profound and more clever than I imagined. I preferred it when it sounded ironic.

DMT is certainly a good example to choose in support of your argument. I want to say But But But What about all of the other chemicals- the nasty ones, all of the mutagens and carcinogens for example? Why are some chemicals specially selected as the cause of the universe being as it is and others are just chemicals without a higher purpose? Is it OK to ask or are they imprudent questions too?

Thank you for making me realise how very severely at odds Big Bang cosmology is with the mainstream scientific idea of evolution. I'm afraid I'm siding with Darwin and you've provided me with yet another very good reason for rejecting the Big bang.

Kyle,

its still an awesome essay.

Sorry to have focussed particularly on that one teleological argument. I wanted to say more than how much I like your writing. I'm confused now though as to whether I am reading your essay as intended and whether the contradictions -are- deliberately put together for effect, to show that something is wrong. You seem enamoured of everything except perhaps the inability of reductionism to capture the essence of music.

Which basic assumptions are wrong? Is your answer: That there is only one correct, reductionist, model of reality? Kyle Miller wrote: "And so, the problem with the multitude of interpretations, was the assumption that there must be only one that is correct: there are many operating systems for the computer,and, each represents its own universe of computer programs; the sounds produced, by the guitar, are amplified vibrations, of the microscopic realm - which are not only a function of the observers, but also the performer, who reaches out with the "hidden variables" that make up their musical system;" Or is your whole essay intended to make us think about the question rather than give definite answers?

I've been mostly concentrating on why physics models don't work together lately and have not given sufficient attention the weird contradiction that two of the biggest mainstream scientific models namely Big Bang and Evolution are utterly incompatible. Its odd that Creationists and Intelligent design proponents get a hard time because their arguments are at odds with Evolution. All of their teleological arguments can be rejected by the majority of biologists who have studied Evolution (and now also epigenetics) and many other scientists and informed members of the public. Yet Big Bang cosmology which is also severely at odds with Evolution remains unchallenged -on that-. It is still being presented on new TV documentaries as the miraculous awesome Truth.

You go straight from talking about a Big Bang related idea to the universe being a quantum computer but they too seem contradictory. Either the universe is calculating itself, for some reason physicists like the metaphor- or it has been, is, and will be, -all that-, ever since the Big Bang and Inflation.

Your essay seems like a delicious feast. Each dish is individually and seriously prepared and some are contrasting with each other.You aren't expressing a personal preference for any of the models either in your essay or your taciturn comments. Except at the very end with your revealing statement "Alas, the best that can be offered then is an appeal-to our own feelings, intuitions, opinions, and tastes regarding what postulates are in line. . . with the true program. So, perhaps there is hope yet for String Theory-and it might one day come to epitomize the quantum supremacy."Kyle Miller

I'm not a mind reader. Either you want to share the thinking behind your essay or you don't. Being mysterious saves a lot of time and effort : )

Good Luck.

..and in keeping with quantum theory uncertainty reigns!

You could be in politics, saying just enough to keep your audience satisfied while not giving a straight answer to a straight question. That's probably wise.

Best Regards, Georgina.

Dear Kyle,

I just finished reading your interesting submission, which I found refreshing different from the others. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Regarding LSD, magic mushrooms, etc., it's striking to consider the profound effect of fungus on human civilization, and also that many of the most influential derivatives were discovered within a few years of each other. Penicillin, anyone?

2. Regarding reductionism versus holism, I tend to believe that holism arises precisely because of quantum effects. If you try to combine Richard Feynman's sum-over-histories method of quantum theory with general relativity, you get a situation in which the entire universe is relevant to "what happens next."

3. On the subject of graphene, I'm sure you've read about the ideas for a "space elevator" maid of carbon nanofibers (closely related to graphene). I've read that a cable of this a centimeter across could support 10000 tons. What's funny is that the stress is distributed in such a way that the thinnest part of the cable would be the part attached to the earth's surface.

4. I'm one who is optimistic that quantum computing may give us indirect knowledge about the fundamental structure of spacetime. At the end of my essay here I propose using quantum computers as "virtual laboratories" to precisely model interactions many orders of magnitude smaller.

Anyway, thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Kyle,

I don't know why your inteligent and beautifully crafted essay did not get more readers. IMHO it deserved more attention and to ranked higher than it was. I hope more readers will yet find and appreciate it. Best regards, Georgina

Quote: It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of technology, noted, "a 75-year war". It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other just doesn't get it. "Its a kind of funny situation," N. David Mermin of Cornell, who has called Einstein's spooky action "the closest thing we have to magic,"said referring to recent results"............. Quote:"From the day 100 years ago that he breathed life into quantum theory by deducing that light behaved like a particle as well as a wave, Einstein never stopped warning that it was dangerous to the age old dream of an orderly universe."........................................Quote"If quantum mechanics is only about information and a way of predicting the results of measurement, these questions don't matter, most quantum physicists say. "But", Dr Leggett said, "if you take the view that information is reflecting something out there in the real world, it matters immensely."

Quotes from: Quantum Trickery :Testing Einstein's strangest Theory. Dennis Overbyte 2005 N.Y. Times.

I'd like to think that perhaps quantum mechanics will soon be reconciled with classical physics which is part of its growing up and finding its rightful place in physics rather than being the wild child, calling into question older authority and being a fantastic nuisance.

You wrote,Quote:"Symbolically, the quantum supremacy is best represented, by the Greek letter psi:[ ]that, in the literature, refers to the wave function. Those who study the universe at large with telescopes, radio antenna arrays, satellites, and other scientific instruments are called cosmologists and astronomers. There are some people working, in this field, who assume that the entire universe can be thought of-with quantum mechanics-as being one single universal wave function. They call it quantum cosmology, and, it flies in the face of what General Relativity implies: an order independent, of the action of quanta. The space-time continuum surely represents, at the very least, another function."

Yes I agree because the distribution of EM 'information' in the environment is something different from the output generated from EM 'information' that has been received and processed. The raw unprocessed 'information' co-existing simultaneously in the environment is also something different from the material sources of that 'information'. Getting the relationships clear then allows the different kind of physics to work together and the war is over. The best way to formalise the arrangement so that everyone is happy with it is another matter. Like music theory then, some will want the letters of the notes or chords, some want the chords illustrated, some require tablature, some standard notation -But its all the same music.

Your 'biography' was probably also a deterrent to some potential readers and possibly a relevant factor in the choice of a low rating by others.

"Giving graphene the bends makes it transistor ready"New Scientist.

Clever. Made me think of your essay.