[ExI] The unlimited size of qubits.
msd001 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 5 00:12:19 UTC 2019
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 4:03 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com wrote:
> > I intuit that there is a dependence on information in another dimension
> By dimension here, do you mean an extra dimension like an orthogonal axis
> added to 3+1 space-time to give an exclusive channel for quantum
> information to be shared between distant events? Or do you mean a separate
> space entirely like a platonic realm of bits and wave functions?
I guess the distinction is one of scope or possibly bandwidth. A separate
space would be 3 of those original axis taken as a tuple, right? :) maybe
3+1 is 6 taken as 3 + a checksum of another 3. Call it a spacetime RAID.
many worlds is redundancy and the posited bifurcation in world lines is
perspective-induced distortion. Idk, maybe it's analogous to the blind
spot caused by the optic nerve that our processing equipment simply edited
out of normal awareness.
> > or a relation to information that can only be transformed by certain
> > rules, which effectively externalizes context into the syntax and
> > grammar so the qubit itself is encoding information only when that
> > context is already understood.
> Shannon information exists whether one understands the context or not. The
> raw byte code of your favorite movie in some video format is still
> information, even if you don't have the right video codec to play the
> movie. Semantics and meaning are relative but information itself seems to
> be absolute and independent of ones ability to understand it or even just
> see it. A closed book still contains information even if it is in a
> language you don't understand.
Yeah, agreed. However, to strain the analogy some... you read 1984 when
you were X years old. It contained a string of bytes that represembles the
exact text authored by Orwell. You read it again when you are 2X years
old; same exact bytes so it's the same information - but you experience a
slightly different story thanks to additional X years of subjective
context. You might also learn there is a steganographic encoding of another
message inside those bytes. Knowing the cypher grants additional layers
of story, perhaps even changing the A story because of the B story ... or
does that simply create a C story? Or are we assuming the bytes already
literally "mean" every permutation of cypher and harmonic/overtones
possible for byte stream of length N? (Including resequencing bytes or
groups of bytes)
This reminds me of a thought I had as a child: how many ways can you write
the number 8? 4+4, 10-2, etc with all the ways you learned in 1st grade,
but also 2^3 and sqrt(64) and such that you learn later. Also encodings
like binary or hexadecimal. Etc. The point was that "8" is only one
convention for how to express the idea of eight. Maybe this comes back to
the Platonic realm?
> > I just read an article on octonions, which
> > has a lot of words I don't know how to use but which gives new avenues
> > for thinking.
> I am impressed as octanions are anything but easy. But if you can develop
> your understanding of them, you will well-poised to develop intuitions
> about low dimensional Hilbert spaces and single particle wave functions.
> So keep at it and the words will come to you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat