About quantum computing and free will
Habr, hello! I want to share my thoughts that have arisen as a result of studying issues related to quantum computing. I apologize for the fact that there is no picture in the post, but I think that any image will only confuse and divert from the subject matter. I would be glad if someone would comment on something and help me to get deeper into these issues ...
To begin with, building a quantum computer requires a fairly solid theoretical foundation, free from paradoxes and contradictions. Quantum mechanics appeared quite a long time ago, but it was incomplete due to well-known inconsistencies.
In my opinion, the most important obstacle on the way was that it was not possible to formalize the concept of the collapse of the wave function. And exclude from the process of measurement the role of subjective consciousness. As the theory was not turned inside out in different interpretations, all the same, it all came down to that there must be an observer somewhere, who in the end will decide what is really happening. The absurdity of the situation summed up Einstein, as always in his ironic, but rather tough manner to all visionaries: “Do you really think that the Moon does not exist until you look at it?” But despite this, Einstein himself was not able to put forward a concept that removes contradictions and is in agreement with the results of experiments.
Nevertheless, since the time of Einstein, science has not stood in place and many experiments have been conducted, roughly outlining the landscape of quantum reality. The most important area of ​​experimentation is the refutation of the theory of hidden parameters and the study of the entanglement of particles. Fantasy experimenters can only envy. Of the most daring of its absurdity experiments was this: but let us first carry out measurements on particles, and only then someday we will confuse them. Of course, nothing helped - the particles still behaved as if they were a single whole, even if they were confused after the experiment. What leads to quite interesting thoughts.
')
Physicists began to worry that all available interpretations limited scientific thought and began to look for a solution to the problem. The result of these efforts was the so-called “existential interpretation” of quantum mechanics, and its main concepts were decoherence, recurrence, and the theory of continuous measurements. I think the key scientific work on this issue was the article:
The main thing that this theory gave was that now we could deal with the description of the world in purely quantum concepts, without worrying about how it looks in the real world, so to speak. We can now turn to the classical properties of objects at any time using the mathematical apparatus of decoherence.
Was immediately made a mass of conclusions about the fundamental properties of a pure quantum world. All this was implied before, only now it has acquired a more concrete and stable form. Here are some interesting conclusions about quantum systems:
The consequences of applying decoherence theory to cosmology are also interesting. According to a pure quantum description, the universe originated, or rather continuously occurs, from a so-called non-local quantum source. Physical laws appear as a result of the interaction of the quantum components of this source with each other. There is a kind of condensation of reality. You can still imagine the classical world as an interference pattern of quantum reality. All physical quantities and constants obtained as a result of a consensus of quantum components.
You can roughly imagine this as if we launched a bunch of people on the mainland and observed how the state is formed from them with its own laws. Or the process of forming technical standards. The question of why the mass of an electron so well correlates with the mass of a proton, and all other questions on the successful ratio of fundamental constants now look something like “Why AAA batteries so successfully fit into radio receivers and flashlights.”
In principle, the structure of our universe, as part of a quantum universe, can be explained from the standpoint of so-called quantum Darwinism (there is such a theory — quantum states fight for the right to participate in decoherence) and the weak anthropic principle (where without it :)
Thus, all physical quantities are projections of quantum information onto a consensus basis. And controlling quantum information, we can do anything with these quantities (which happens when quantum computers work).
Returning to the analogy with the state, I would like to discuss a little more in these terms.
You can imagine a country in which the laws are not prohibitive in nature, but permissive. Suppose, first, it says that everything is forbidden at all, if it is not allowed by any law. Then, for example, in order for citizens to be able to breathe, they can issue a series of laws. The first law allows citizens to have lungs and other respiratory organs. The second law allows them to come into contact with air. The third is to take a breath. Fourth do exhale. And so on.
It is clear that this is complete nonsense and a country with such an approach will not last long. Correct other approach. First, the right to live is declared to everyone and everywhere, and as a special case - to breathe. So that no one about this, God forbid, do not forget, it is written in the Constitution. Further, the laws are only restrictions required for comfortable cohabitation and breathing of citizens - for example - not to smoke in public places.
You can often come across type phrases - after all, in the Constitution, everything is written as great - we have the right to housing, education, medical care, education - but in fact there is nothing. These questions reflect a primitive view of how the legal system works, and any other based on the consensus of sovereign components.
Surprisingly, the classical non-quantum description of the world is of a permissive nature, hence its inability to explain many phenomena.
From the point of view of a pure quantum description of the world, the question “How does free will arise from physical laws?” Is incorrect and naive. The correct question will be: “How do the physical laws established by interactions limit the free will inherent in quantum systems?”.
After all, a quantum system without interactions is completely free - it is immediately in all its states at once and has achieved everything that is possible.
You were invited to two parties at once. Your quantum entity breaks immediately and there and there. And mentally, in the realm of absolute freedom, you have already been there and there. But the laws of decoherence tell you that the parties are divided in space. And at the same time you can be either there or there. As a result, you make a choice with some probability, which depends only on your free sovereign expression of will.
And maybe not to go to a party at all, but stay at home?
Formulation of the problem
To begin with, building a quantum computer requires a fairly solid theoretical foundation, free from paradoxes and contradictions. Quantum mechanics appeared quite a long time ago, but it was incomplete due to well-known inconsistencies.
In my opinion, the most important obstacle on the way was that it was not possible to formalize the concept of the collapse of the wave function. And exclude from the process of measurement the role of subjective consciousness. As the theory was not turned inside out in different interpretations, all the same, it all came down to that there must be an observer somewhere, who in the end will decide what is really happening. The absurdity of the situation summed up Einstein, as always in his ironic, but rather tough manner to all visionaries: “Do you really think that the Moon does not exist until you look at it?” But despite this, Einstein himself was not able to put forward a concept that removes contradictions and is in agreement with the results of experiments.
Existential interpretation
Nevertheless, since the time of Einstein, science has not stood in place and many experiments have been conducted, roughly outlining the landscape of quantum reality. The most important area of ​​experimentation is the refutation of the theory of hidden parameters and the study of the entanglement of particles. Fantasy experimenters can only envy. Of the most daring of its absurdity experiments was this: but let us first carry out measurements on particles, and only then someday we will confuse them. Of course, nothing helped - the particles still behaved as if they were a single whole, even if they were confused after the experiment. What leads to quite interesting thoughts.
')
Physicists began to worry that all available interpretations limited scientific thought and began to look for a solution to the problem. The result of these efforts was the so-called “existential interpretation” of quantum mechanics, and its main concepts were decoherence, recurrence, and the theory of continuous measurements. I think the key scientific work on this issue was the article:
V. Zurek DECOGERENCE AND TRANSITION FROM THE QUANTUM WORLD TO THE CLASSICAL Los Alamos Science, Number 27 2002.The main meaning of existential interpretation in classical concepts was as follows: the whole universe, or more precisely all quantum subsystems interacting with the particles under study, was declared as an observer and measuring instrument. And the classical properties of an object arise as a result of averaging over all these interactions.
The main thing that this theory gave was that now we could deal with the description of the world in purely quantum concepts, without worrying about how it looks in the real world, so to speak. We can now turn to the classical properties of objects at any time using the mathematical apparatus of decoherence.
Strange pure quantum world
Was immediately made a mass of conclusions about the fundamental properties of a pure quantum world. All this was implied before, only now it has acquired a more concrete and stable form. Here are some interesting conclusions about quantum systems:
- A quantum system cannot be copied in principle (with the proviso - without destroying it, which in fact is not important). A little distracted I will say that this removes the famous philosophical paradox of copying the mind. Since it can not be copied in principle.
- Two quantum systems that once came into the interaction can no longer be divided and considered separately from each other.
- Having complete information about the quantum system, we nevertheless cannot say the same about its components. It is difficult to imagine, because in classical physics everything is the opposite - we get complete knowledge of the system only if we fully describe its components, and plus we describe the interaction between them.
The consequences of applying decoherence theory to cosmology are also interesting. According to a pure quantum description, the universe originated, or rather continuously occurs, from a so-called non-local quantum source. Physical laws appear as a result of the interaction of the quantum components of this source with each other. There is a kind of condensation of reality. You can still imagine the classical world as an interference pattern of quantum reality. All physical quantities and constants obtained as a result of a consensus of quantum components.
You can roughly imagine this as if we launched a bunch of people on the mainland and observed how the state is formed from them with its own laws. Or the process of forming technical standards. The question of why the mass of an electron so well correlates with the mass of a proton, and all other questions on the successful ratio of fundamental constants now look something like “Why AAA batteries so successfully fit into radio receivers and flashlights.”
In principle, the structure of our universe, as part of a quantum universe, can be explained from the standpoint of so-called quantum Darwinism (there is such a theory — quantum states fight for the right to participate in decoherence) and the weak anthropic principle (where without it :)
Thus, all physical quantities are projections of quantum information onto a consensus basis. And controlling quantum information, we can do anything with these quantities (which happens when quantum computers work).
So what's up with free will?
Returning to the analogy with the state, I would like to discuss a little more in these terms.
You can imagine a country in which the laws are not prohibitive in nature, but permissive. Suppose, first, it says that everything is forbidden at all, if it is not allowed by any law. Then, for example, in order for citizens to be able to breathe, they can issue a series of laws. The first law allows citizens to have lungs and other respiratory organs. The second law allows them to come into contact with air. The third is to take a breath. Fourth do exhale. And so on.
It is clear that this is complete nonsense and a country with such an approach will not last long. Correct other approach. First, the right to live is declared to everyone and everywhere, and as a special case - to breathe. So that no one about this, God forbid, do not forget, it is written in the Constitution. Further, the laws are only restrictions required for comfortable cohabitation and breathing of citizens - for example - not to smoke in public places.
You can often come across type phrases - after all, in the Constitution, everything is written as great - we have the right to housing, education, medical care, education - but in fact there is nothing. These questions reflect a primitive view of how the legal system works, and any other based on the consensus of sovereign components.
Surprisingly, the classical non-quantum description of the world is of a permissive nature, hence its inability to explain many phenomena.
From the point of view of a pure quantum description of the world, the question “How does free will arise from physical laws?” Is incorrect and naive. The correct question will be: “How do the physical laws established by interactions limit the free will inherent in quantum systems?”.
After all, a quantum system without interactions is completely free - it is immediately in all its states at once and has achieved everything that is possible.
You were invited to two parties at once. Your quantum entity breaks immediately and there and there. And mentally, in the realm of absolute freedom, you have already been there and there. But the laws of decoherence tell you that the parties are divided in space. And at the same time you can be either there or there. As a result, you make a choice with some probability, which depends only on your free sovereign expression of will.
And maybe not to go to a party at all, but stay at home?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/441328/
All Articles