Cartoon aided design: The lighter side of computing

Product Information

By “information is energy”, he means that this type of dynamic information is conserved in basically the same way energy is conserved. He investigates a great number of situations, both situations which should confirm his conjecture and make it more understandable, but also situations which seem to contradict his conjecture at first sight. Most of his solutions for those contradictory situations felt good (and sometimes enlightening) to me, but sometimes his solutions didn’t convince me. The universe is a self-modeling language, and there are 3 levels of recursion: Information>Fields>Cognition. Each level has it’s own ‘arrow of time’. Zach #33: I’ve already decided that I’m not going to get upset when Lubos calls me “the most corrupt moral trash,” urges my students to spit in my face, etc. So by symmetry, I shouldn’t be gratified either if he happens to like something that I was involved with.

And this is an unpopular opinion but I think everyone who wants to learn more should learn more math, it is easier for the kid to learn more math than for the mom to come up with an analogy, to quote Feynman: ” To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature.” ppnl and Sniffnoy: I always assumed the alien nerd would be calculate the billionth integer in the continued fraction expansion of pi. ( http://oeis.org/A001203)A model is a mathematical construct that describes some aspect of the material world. It’s purpose is to make visualization easy and give us an intuition for it. QM needs Complex Numbers but they might have a more complex or a simpler way for working with them. We are accustomed to working with a+bi form or some other equivalent form but they might be using pulses of electricity or be more comfortable with some matrix notation…..

People who do know a lot but think QC is not worth studying (Oded Goldreich might be in this category)

As to me, I don’t accept the position that randomness exists in a metaphysical sense. This point of our difference is philosophical in nature; in fact even you yourself said “ontologicaly.” But QM is not a philosophical theory—it is not a branch of or theory in ontology (or metaphysics) any more than it is not a branch of theology. QM is a theory of physics. Don’t club the two together. A classical physics description of the act of catching a ball in his hands by a man (or that of throwing it) would be enough. In fact, a classical description of a dog catching a ball also would be enough. … An ant carrying a grain of sugar. An amoeba surrounding its food. …

For people who, willfully or not, misunderstand my work and are open to reforming their ways I have a list of references of increasing mathematical precision that I send to help set them straight. This has now become first on that list. base 12 is obviously the better choice, it makes daily calculations much easier but we have 10 fingers and so we have an intuition for base 10 and we need to develop an intuition for base 12.

Teaching about the latest events?

That what quantum measurements show is a perfect randomness, is a hypothesis not a physically established fact. … Actually, it’s not even a hypothesis. It is just a conjecture because none has found a sensitive and accurate enough way to experimentally verify it. If you must refer to Popper’s falsifiability criterion (and I don’t care to), the matter has not yet experimentally come within the realm of falsifiability. Of course, the aliens simulating our universe might be fine with that nonlocality, and you might be fine with it too! But what it does is to push the alleged pseudorandomness of quantum measurement outcomes to a level that’s disconnected from what we actually know about physics. Note, in particular, that it’s extremely important that none of us ever discover the pattern to the pseudorandomness, since if we did, we could break the whole structure of QM, communicate faster than light, etc. Personally, I’d say that it’s of limited interest to postulate a theoretical superstructure that has to be so intentionally sequestered from everything we know about the workings of the world, but YMMV. gasarch #41: I can say from experience that Oded Goldreich does indeed know a lot, but the lot that he knows is not about QC (and he readily admits as much). In particular, notice the words: “if,”“would,”“certain,”“similarities” etc. (Is skipping such words the reason you have difficulty understanding what I write? Were you very rapidly browsing what I wrote?) I don’t quite understand right away, but never mind. (I don’t want to put you through the trouble of explaining something to me at a time that I am not even ready to understand it!)

plan sequences of instructions to produce desired effects, test them out, decide how to change the instructions to improve their effect and then refine them as required and clearly describe the effect of their instruction sequences in a way that a non-expert can understand. If you would still only emphasize: “but it is deterministic,” then, sorry, I would have nothing to add further w.r.t. this point. I applaud Scott for his intelligent discussions with both the people who overhype and the people who think its not worth studying. What does that lead to? Simple: The selection of one of the eigenstates making up the bra corresponds to and is brought about by the unspoken “environmental” aspects. The “environmental” aspects constitutes a hidden mechanism (which is not quite exactly a hidden variable), and it is responsible for the selection. EXPERIENCE SOME ASPECTS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (SUCH AS FIXING BUGS, TESTING AND ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT) DEVELOP COLLABORATIVE SKILLS THROUGH WORK WITH A PARTNER YOU WILL NEED…And I don’t understand what you mean by measurement rules being deterministic. Quantum measurements are always irreducibly ontogicaly random. That randomness simply is. There is no underlying mechanism. That is the point of the Born rule.