Multiverse and Computation

-
The idea that quantum computation is a manifestation of the multiverse is not new. For example, David Deutsch believes that quantum computers can be used to test its existence. Personally I believe that the multiverse is good for scripts of scifi series (e.g., the Fringer) but that's all. But I think that something is also logically wrong with this idea.

Roughly, the multiverse is the idea that there many copies of our universe (or some universe) and each evolves differently, yet in each one of them there is a copy of me but all these copies are different pairwise. Obviously, at each moment many things happen that can have different outcomes so in one universe a spermatozoon fuses with an ovum while in another this never happens but in another universe a different spermatozoon fuses with it. Practically, this means that in the first universe person A will be born, in the second nothing will happen while in the third person B will be born. If all these things are quite possible (!), I wonder how and why a quantum computer would synchronize all these universes? In most of these universes there is no parallel of myself so who is going to participate in the computation that I just started?

In my opinion, hypercomputation is the idea that we do not know enough physics to definitely say that the Turing machine dictates what can and what cannot be computed. On the other hand, the multiverse, in general, and Deutsch's ideas, are about the certitude that
  • the multiverse exists
  • there are different forms of ourselves in parallel universes
  • quantum computation takes place simultaneously in a number of universes 
Some call this science but I call it pseudoscience!

Σχόλια

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις από αυτό το ιστολόγιο

A comment on a comment

-
Recently, "someone" posted a review of my book on hypercomputation on the Brains site. The reviewer argues that This area is full of problems, some of which are physico/mathematical and some of which are conceptual. Unfortunately, from a quick sample, Syropolous's book does not avoid common mistakes and confusions—some of which I've been trying to correct in my own work. First of all, I have to admit that back in 2004 I read a paper by this reviewer, but at that time I did not considered it interesting. However, after I read this review of my book, I read The Physical Church-Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold? , the reviewer's latest manuscript, in order to see what he meant by common mistakes and confusions and how he was trying to solve them. In this manuscript, the reviewer puts forth a number of criteria that every machine has to satisfy in order to be ``useful for physical computing.'' These criteria are: Readable Inputs and Outputs Process-Independ
Διαβάστε περισσότερα

A rebuttal to a review

-
In May, 2009 a review of my book on hypercomputation appeared in the Computing Reviews . Although I submitted a rebuttal to the review, it appeared slightly edited. So for reasons of completeness, I post my complete rebuttal here today. --> It is known that disagreements in the academic world are quite common and constitute the essence of any scientific production. Everybody who is doing some scholar work is virtually exposed to criticism. Nevertheless, it is one thing to criticize one's work and another to present a piece of work in such a way that potential readers get the impression that the work is almost worthless! A typical example of this “reviewing technique” is to assert that an author fully and unconditionally subscribes to a particular idea, when, in fact, she/he explicitly states that one cannot be sure about the idea! Apparently, Zenil's review is based on this “technique” and has almost fiercely tried to convince his readers t
Διαβάστε περισσότερα