Re: SIRDS and Quantum Computers

Subject: Re: SIRDS and Quantum Computers
Date: Fri Jan 07 2000 - 16:14:32 MET

In article <854gb0$fdm$>, wrote:
> -----------------excerpted, see original-----------------------------
> Incidentally, in correspondence with Professor Berry he told
> me that he and a colleague had shown that the Boson,
> Fermion distiction and the Paulli exclusion principle could
> be explained by Berry phase. I'm still in the process of
> understanding it.
> I think that the use of higher order numbers beyond reals in
> any area is, at base, just like in engineering. It means that
> we need extra measures to keep track of all the variables.

Yes, in much the same way an analogy or metaphor connects independant
but correlated systems.

J. Pearl seems to use the ideas of "instrument variables" vs
non-instrument (non-measureable) variables:

Interesting papers on causality, Simpson's paradox,
and hidden variables:

Judea Pearl homepage:

"On the Testability of Causal Models
 with Latent and Instrumental Variables"

This paper shows an interesting perspective on Bell's inequality.

> Thus a phase in Fourier series means complex numbers which
> are two measure representations of general 2D (4 parameter
> linear) transformations.
> When you talk of the limited resources of economics isn't the
> most limited our human intelligence(learning) and all the stuff
> only scarce reference human wants? I agree there are needs for
> a number of subtle concepts in treating economics, like your
> pointers. Also the wishes you mention are pictured as ideal
> images of wants. Everything we do is formed as images in
> negative time (expected time) and then evolves into some
> current realities and hopes. In my modeling these are separate
> images that we compare and derive driving error signal for our
> growth.

> I think the randomness speed effect you talk of is usually an
> illusion. The best it can do is match the search method to the
> degree of ignorance but then maybe there is some magic I don't
> know.

   Walking in a crowded city it is easy to experience that the
   avoidance of oncoming pedestrian traffic is determined not
   only by yourself and the people headed towards you but also by
   the people coming up behind you (because the people walking
   towards you see them and are planning to avoid them as well)
   so often it appears to people that the person headed towards
   them is acting stupidly when in fact they are trying to get
   past you _and_ the people you are ignorant of coming up behind

   In any case it seems the faster you walk (relative to those
   moving in the same direction), the better information you have
   about their current positions as you meet up with the
   oncoming traffic, whereas the slower you move, the more
   "out of date" the information is about who you just passed
   and so it is harder to anticipate the constraints on the
   actions and reactions of the oncoming "resistance".
   (I wonder if Cooper's pairs or the Autobahn are like this)

> In an earlier message you mentioned a disjoint parallel between
> logical actions, apparentally seen as cause and effect sequential
> actions and ANALOGIC actions which were instead without logic?
> but with parallel instantaneous channels like frequency channels
> in communication. Did I hear you correctly and how complete and
> important do you see this parallel?

Holography seems to give good clues about the connection
between parallel and serial in terms of reflection and
transmission holograms respectively:

Other parallel-serial dualisms seem to be:

* Huygen's construction of superposed waves vs. mixture of
  serially ray-traced particles

* streams vs. datagrams in network protocols.

* Superpositions of reflected colors vs. transmitted colors of
  from "filters".

* democrat (many centered) vs. republican (individual-centered)

* observing a work of art subjectively vs.
  scanning it line by line with a TV camera or scanner.

* gestaltism (systems theory) vs. vivisection (reductionism)

* analogic vs. logic

* managment vs. labor

etc etc. respectively in terms of which is a dominant trait:
parallel vs. serial

Many complex systems seem to incorporate coordinated and
largely independant subsystems which in some situations
may be made to "interfere" with each other dissolving that
independance. And example Ross Ashby gives is a person
learning to drive. In such a case the act of "shifting gears"
is initially an act wholely separated from the act of
"avoiding the curb" so that the new learner eventually
brings these acts together in concert to make them independant
(serial) yet coordinated (parallel).

So rather than looking at "parallel" as being a collection
or mixture of distinct serial streams, we can also see
parallel as being a superposition of non-distinct serial
streams which interfere (or alias) with each other and
such superpositions are "non-orthogonal" if we cannot
separate them as in abstract quantum wavefunctions[1], or orthogonal
if we can separate them as in physical sound signals
or radio waves, or light spectra.

[1] Quantum wavefunctions collapse leaving only one state from many.
    When a light beam "collapses", you get all of the
    states or equivalently its spectrum (sort of a distinction
    between rays and spectra, or functions and distributions,
    or serial and parallel).

Sent via
Before you buy.

This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
(1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
"SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to
(2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
(3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
(4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
(5) WWW archive:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 15:59:36 MET DST