[107843] in Cypherpunks
CDR: A digital way to filter... (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Mon Jan 25 19:41:32 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:06:14 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:08:42 -0800
From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: CDR: A digital way to filter...
>So you're now claiming that your vague talk about using _optical_ gizmos
>means you were talking about quantum computers (qua quantum, not merely
>modern solid state devices which happen to use various parts of QM)?
I'm not claiming anything, merely making an observation. There is nothing
strange about a tuned optical trap and it most assuradely isn't a 'gizmo'
in the negative connotation you'd have me use (if you had your way). And
the optical trap technique has nothing to do with QM. The optical trap
is pumped by a tunable dye laser. As that laser is moved across its tuning
band the output of the trap could be observed for standing waves. If they
occur then a harmonic has been found.
I was never talking about solid state devices as a primary mechanism to
build it. Only that it was buildable using that technology. Bill asked a
question about how it would be built and I answered it. ONLY you and he
are claiming it as a primary goal.
>No, Bill was (more politely than I can be) reminding you that tradeoffs
No, Bill was euphamistic. Polite means you don't insult people in the
first place. Both of you could learn some manners and a lesson on when
to keep your mouth shut.
>between time and space are terribly important in computations, that the
>price one can pay for shorter computation time is in drastically increased
>storage space needed. In this case, that more storage is needed than there
>are particles in the universe--by many, many orders of magnitude.
Granted, which is wny I didn't propose it in the first place. Bill did, in
the vain attempt to lead me into a culldesack.
>If you don't understand this point, there is no point in going into more
>detail.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on Timmy.
>Bzzzzt!! Wrong answer. Bohm was not the Many Worlds guy. In fact, he was
>strongly critical of it. Cf. his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" or
>"The Undivided Universe" for more on his views. Cf. especially his "pilot
>wave" interpretation.
Bzzzzzzt!! Double wrong answer on your part. Bohms first couple of papers
were related to the original Many Worlds theory. While it is true that he
didn't hold it in the later part of his life (re Undivided Universe) it
was one of his initial models. The papers came out in mid to late 50's
before he got canned for his commie tendencies.
In "Unidivided Universe" on pp. 336 he even admits there there is a way
(dynamic decoherence) to look at the Many Worlds that addresses one of his
major objections to the two theories as currently presented.
One suggestion Timmy, never try to argue with me by using books I've read.
____________________________________________________________________
What raises the standard of living may well diminish the
quality of life.
The Club of Rome
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
