This Game Teaches You How to Build a Quantum Computer / motherboard

@ThomasKlimpel No! in fact, the question about parallel computation was motivated because I was curious to see why people in the filed of "algorithm" not focusing in "parallel algorithm" as well as "exact algorithm" in terms of "exact, approximation, randomized, etc.". before one week I thought that 2^64 computers is enough to solve a problem with complexity of 2^64.

But in turns out that the more computers we have, the more communication we want between these computers. So, at same point, increasing the number of computers doesn't help us at all. This is really natural to believe it in economic side (because if we have too much employees in building, the work could be slow and and if there are few also the work would be slow. But if there are some in between, it would be good "which is the average");

but I didn't think about "communication" when I was thinking about "parallel computation"! Also, I should say that in theory especially in terms of exact algorithm, we talk always about "algorithm" which equal Church-Turing thesis, while in parallel algorithm, we need to see which model of computation we are dealing with,

So I was wondering whether "there is an exact model of computation in parallel" in which we are able to build an "parallel algorithm" given that no matter what "parallel computation model" you have, the different between models are always polynomial (just like the case in exact algorithm)

@vzn hi

thanks for your comment and the invite

i admit this was the first time I had found out about relational qm

@user929304 hi, thx for dropping by, recently wrote at length on the topic in an essay, & have years of essays examining the question. its a very complex area, possibly now ripe(ning) for some reformulation/ revision...

do you have some concrete examples regarding where certain points in the paper are off? becaue it goes beyond me very quickly to see the bigger picture like that

thanks a lot, I didnt know

do like the papers/ rovellis attempt to decouple measurement problem from human action, but in short, in contrary to paper claims, there is increasing support for "ontological nature of the wavefn"...

I mean, isnt the main claim in relational QM that: there s no objective state of a system, unless we compare it to another system

?

@user929304 am not an expert on relational QM, have recently looked into it some )( ...

what does "ontological nature of wavefunction" mean? that it is real/physical?

@user929304 yes, ontological ("real") vs epistemological ("an accounting construct") are the code words used in the literature, where copenhagen emphasizes epistemological.

aha!

I see

when you read that Rovellis paper

is there something that comes across as very off?

as in, if the attempt is to remove the measurement problem, are other problems reintroduced as a result?

I for one always knew about the copenhagen approach

I mean Schrodinger never claimed the wavefunction is a physical wave... did he?

right now it is impossible to prove mere interpretations incorrect, hence a lot of the land of confusion. schoedinger did in fact go in the direction of thinking/ asserting the wavefn was somehow real and this has been largely swept under rug by later history.

ohh

would you say relational QM, i.e. line of arguments Rovellis is using in that paper, is well different than copenhagen?

> First, Schr¨odinger’s basis for giving ontological weight to ψ was the claim that quantum theory is a theory of waves in physical space. But this is wrong: already the quantum state of two particles cannot be expressed as a collection of functions on physical space.

I ask because, some people say they are roughly the same... but it s hard to imagine why

what does that last part mean? "already the quantum state of two particles cannot be expressed as a collection of functions on physical space." why can it not be expressed I mean?

↑ prior rovelli quote sounds wrong ie unproven claim to me

ahhh

@user929304 basically, all this is an area of active research. if you want to go beyond what is in textbooks/ conventional wisdom, there is much available... but its not yet intellectually solidified into an "edifice".

indeed sure

I d love to chat about it more with you, this is really cool to have this possiblity

I have to leave and go do some groceries

but hopefully later we can resume discussing some more

its a long term prj! the new theory is being formulated before our eyes but it will take years to crystallize. re expressing QM wavefn in terms of 3d space (fns) think it probably/ likely relates to this area