Stephen Paul King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 01 Jan 2000 11:56:20 -0500
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SIRDS and Quantum Computers
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:52:46 +0100 (MET)
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
In many cases there are very similar behaviours to quantum
effects which are based less in physical processes and more
in terms of the information communicated. SIRDS or random
dot stereograms, optical illusions, and Simpson's Paradox,
are examples which display complementarity dualism and to
some extent, the collapse of a virtual representation into
a more real and measureable one.
Take for instance SIRDS (Single image random dot stereograms)
where a pixel has alot of similarity with a qubit in the sense
that it is representing the virtual superposition of two points
on a virtual 3d object using a real 2D projection.
A qubit in a similar manner represents a superposition
in "a higher dimensional virtual space" like the SIRD
pixel (that the quantum superposition is not "measureable"
like a superposition of radio waves of different frequencies,
is what seems to differentiate it from more classical ideas of
superpositions which can be parametrized into more than one
Can we say for instance that the perceived 3D image of a SIRD
is an analog of quantum superposition and the collapse of that
higher dimension into the lower 2D perception is analogous
to wavefunction collapse ? The 3D image is virtual and "observed"
dynamically while the 2D image is real and "measureable"
SIRTS are Single Image Random Text Stereograms, and seem amazing
in terms of the small amount of text needed to produce a IMO,
rather stunning higher dimensional image for the limited
Simple optical illusions also can divide observers subjectively
if two observers disagree on what they see, even though we
understand the nature of that difference to some extent, the
question of reproducibility of this kind of physical _observation_
has none-the-less become problematic since in this case, the
physical image has two "valid" and complementary interpretations ?:
Another case where observer's are divided on "how they ask
a question" rather than "how they view an answer" is more
quantifiable and yet still may yield two "valid" yet
complementary results for the same data:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 10 2000 - 22:16:52 JST