From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!mailgzrz!opal!unido!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond!freitag Tue Nov 26 12:31:03 EST 1991
Article 1454 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!mailgzrz!opal!unido!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond!freitag
>From: freitag@elrond.toppoint.de (Claus Schoenleber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The limits of quantum simulation
Message-ID: <4NqPBB1w164w@elrond.toppoint.de>
Date: 20 Nov 91 13:44:02 GMT
References: <56836@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Claus Schoenleber, Kiel, Germany (3-926986)
Lines: 75

weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> maione@ai.toronto.edu (Ian Christopher Maione) wrote:
> >> [...]  In addition, even a simulation of the brain on a digital
> >> computer is impossible if quantum level effects are in any way
> >> significantly involved in its operation (see Roger Penrose, "The
> >> Emperor's New Mind").
> 
> This gets the usual simulation response:
> 
> In article <73NiBB2w164w@elrond.toppoint.de>, freitag@elrond (Claus Schoenleb
> >Why? There are possible ways to get quantum level effects even on a
> >simulation.  (or simulate them...)
> 
> In article <277@tdatirv.UUCP>, sarima@tdatirv (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> >Bull!  All quantum effects I know of can be simulated using a RNG!
> 
> This simulation response misses a certain subtle point.
> 
> If consciousness depends, for example, on the privacy effects of quantum
> cryptography, then no simulation will achieve real-world consciousness.
> A simulation using RNG's would be classical, and at best, would be con-
> scious relative to other simulations.
> 
> The following example of the use of quantum privacy by conscious minds
> seems--if not plausible, at least possible--on evolutionary grounds.  If
> prey and predator are in a game theoretic situation whose optimum depends
> on randomness, then not only does it seem easier to go straight for the
> quantum randomness, the creature who evolves a classical RNG solution to
> its optimum can have its algorithm cracked.
> 
> While I personally think Penrose is off the wall in claiming that
> quantum gravitational effects are going to be relevant in explaining
> consciousness, note that if he's right, then there is a distinct
> possibility that Church's thesis itself will be invalidated.  For
> the mathematics of four-manifolds contains undecidable propositions.
> The right physics experiment regarding quantum gravity could then,
> in principle, be an oracle for a universal Turing machine.  What
> Penrose is suggesting is that *we* are such a physics experiment.
> And in this case, no amount of simulation is going to achieve even
> a limited consciousness relative to anything.
> -- 
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)

I did not mention classic RNG's. To get random effects there are several ways
of generating them; one way is the classical method of calculating a formula.

But:
Consider, you can use even physical quantum effects to generate random values
in a simulation. And then, why should it not be possible to get those effects
to a similar working system with sort of consciousness (maybe depending on such
quantum effects)?


Regards,

Claus.

p.s.:

BTW: If one cannot detect any difference between a system known as a simulation
     and a system known to be "real", where is the difference in quality?
     Is human vanity to be the one and only known conscious beeing it worth
     to decrease the value of so called "simulations"?



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claus Schoenleber	freitag@elrond.toppoint.de
D-W-2300 Kiel 1		...!uniol!tpki!elrond!freitag
Metzstr. 54
Germany			+49 431 18863 (voice)
=================================================================
        "Never give a sucker an even break" (W.C.Fields)
=================================================================


