From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 23 1998 - 11:30:37 MDT
Michael Nielsen writes:
>So my counterargument is that devices which exploit computational models
>beyond the Turing model in terms of _efficiency_, such as quantum
>computation is presumed to be, may be "incomprehensible" in the sense
>that no classical computer, however large, constrained to run in our
>Universe, could simulate the action of a modestly sized quantum
>computer.
This is a point worth making, but is that the relevant sense of
"incomprehensible" w.r.t. the claim that there is a "singularity" beyond
which we can see nothing? We have a growing body of understanding about
quantum computers, which you are contributing greatly to, even without
having any such computers in hand to play with. I'd guess that with more
work by people like you, we'll be able to say a lot more about the
capabilities of such machines, and to use that understanding to help
envision a future when such machines are possible. Would you go so far
as to say that we are now so incapable of understanding the concepts
important to future intelligences that there's no use in trying to
envision a future with them?
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-2627
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST