February 22, 2019 at 16:03About 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 be confusing and lead away from the essence of the issue. I would be glad if someone comments on something and helps me understand these issues more deeply ...
To begin with, the construction of quantum computers requires a fairly solid theoretical foundation, free from paradoxes and contradictions. Quantum mechanics appeared a long time ago, but it was incomplete due to inconsistencies known to everyone.
The most important obstacle in my opinion was the failure to formalize the concept of wave function collapse. And exclude the role of subjective consciousness from the measurement process. As the theory was not turned inside out in different interpretations, it all came down to the fact that there must be an observer somewhere, who in the end will decide what is really happening. The absurdity of the situation was summed up by 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 still and a lot of experiments have been carried out, roughly outlining the landscape of quantum reality. The most important direction of experiments is the refutation of the theory of hidden parameters and the study of particle entanglement. The fantasies of experimenters can only be envied. Of the most daring experiments in its absurdity, it was this: let us first take measurements on particles, and only then someday we will confuse them. Of course, nothing helped - the particles in the measurements still behaved as a whole, even if they were confused after the experiment. Which 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, regeneration, and the theory of continuous measurements. I think the article became the key scientific work on this issue:
The main thing that this theory gave was that now we could do a description of the world in purely quantum terms, without worrying about how it looks in, so to speak, the real world. We can now switch to the classical properties of objects at any time using the mathematical apparatus of decoherence.
A lot of conclusions were immediately drawn about the fundamental properties of a purely quantum world. All this was implied before, only now it has acquired a more concrete and stable form. Here are some interesting insights 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 picture of quantum reality. All physical quantities and constants were obtained as a result of the consensus of the quantum components.
You can roughly imagine this as if we launched a bunch of people on the mainland and watched how a state is formed from them with its own laws. Or the process of forming technical standards. The question why the mass of the electron correlates so well with the mass of the proton, and all other questions on the good ratio of fundamental constants now looks something like “Why AAA batteries fit so well in radios and flashlights”.
In principle, the structure of our universe, as part of a quantum universe, can be explained from the standpoint of the so-called quantum Darwinism (there is such a theory - quantum states are fighting for the right to participate in decoherence) and a weak anthropic principle (where would it be without it :)
Thus, all physical quantities are the projection of quantum information on a consensus basis. And managing 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 speculate a little more in these terms.
One can imagine a country in which laws are not prohibitive, but permissive. Suppose, at first, it is said that everything is generally prohibited, if it is not permitted by any law. Then, let’s say, so that citizens can have the ability to breathe to issue a series of laws. The first law allows citizens to have lungs and other respiratory organs. The second law allows them to come in contact with air. The third is to take a breath. Fourth exhale. Etc.
It is clear that this is complete nonsense and a country with such an approach will not last long. Another approach is more correct. First, the right to live is declared to everyone and everywhere and, as a special case, to breathe. So that no one, God forbid, forget this, it is written in the Constitution. Further in the laws are only the restrictions required for comfortable cohabitation and breathing of citizens - for example, not to smoke in public places.
Often you can find phrases like - that's because in the Constitution, everything is well written - we have the right to housing, education, medical care, training - but in reality there is nothing. These questions reflect a primitive view of how the legal system operates, and indeed any other based on the consensus of sovereign components.
Surprisingly, the classical non-quantum description of the world is precisely permissive in nature, hence its entire 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 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 essence is torn 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 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.
Or maybe not go to a party at all but stay at home?
Formulation of the problem
To begin with, the construction of quantum computers requires a fairly solid theoretical foundation, free from paradoxes and contradictions. Quantum mechanics appeared a long time ago, but it was incomplete due to inconsistencies known to everyone.
The most important obstacle in my opinion was the failure to formalize the concept of wave function collapse. And exclude the role of subjective consciousness from the measurement process. As the theory was not turned inside out in different interpretations, it all came down to the fact that there must be an observer somewhere, who in the end will decide what is really happening. The absurdity of the situation was summed up by 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 still and a lot of experiments have been carried out, roughly outlining the landscape of quantum reality. The most important direction of experiments is the refutation of the theory of hidden parameters and the study of particle entanglement. The fantasies of experimenters can only be envied. Of the most daring experiments in its absurdity, it was this: let us first take measurements on particles, and only then someday we will confuse them. Of course, nothing helped - the particles in the measurements still behaved as a whole, even if they were confused after the experiment. Which 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, regeneration, and the theory of continuous measurements. I think the article became the key scientific work on this issue:
V. Zurek DECOGENCE AND THE TRANSITION FROM THE QUANTUM WORLD TO THE CLASSICAL Los Alamos Science, Number 27 2002.The basic meaning of the existential interpretation in classical terms was as follows: the whole universe, or rather all the quantum subsystems interacting with the particles under study, was declared as an observer and a measuring device. And the classical properties of the object arise as a result of averaging over all these interactions.
The main thing that this theory gave was that now we could do a description of the world in purely quantum terms, without worrying about how it looks in, so to speak, the real world. We can now switch to the classical properties of objects at any time using the mathematical apparatus of decoherence.
Strange pure quantum world
A lot of conclusions were immediately drawn about the fundamental properties of a purely quantum world. All this was implied before, only now it has acquired a more concrete and stable form. Here are some interesting insights about quantum systems:
- In principle, a quantum system cannot be copied (with the caveat - without destroying it, which is essentially not important). A little distracted, I will say that this removes the well-known philosophical paradox of copying the mind. Since it basically can not be copied.
- Two quantum systems that once came into interaction can no longer be fundamentally separated and considered separately from each other.
- Having complete information about a quantum system, we nevertheless cannot say the same about its components. It is difficult to imagine, because in classical physics the opposite is true - we gain complete knowledge about the system only if we fully describe its components, and plus 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 picture of quantum reality. All physical quantities and constants were obtained as a result of the consensus of the quantum components.
You can roughly imagine this as if we launched a bunch of people on the mainland and watched how a state is formed from them with its own laws. Or the process of forming technical standards. The question why the mass of the electron correlates so well with the mass of the proton, and all other questions on the good ratio of fundamental constants now looks something like “Why AAA batteries fit so well in radios and flashlights”.
In principle, the structure of our universe, as part of a quantum universe, can be explained from the standpoint of the so-called quantum Darwinism (there is such a theory - quantum states are fighting for the right to participate in decoherence) and a weak anthropic principle (where would it be without it :)
Thus, all physical quantities are the projection of quantum information on a consensus basis. And managing quantum information, we can do anything with these quantities (which happens when quantum computers work).
So what is there with free will?
Returning to the analogy with the state, I would like to speculate a little more in these terms.
One can imagine a country in which laws are not prohibitive, but permissive. Suppose, at first, it is said that everything is generally prohibited, if it is not permitted by any law. Then, let’s say, so that citizens can have the ability to breathe to issue a series of laws. The first law allows citizens to have lungs and other respiratory organs. The second law allows them to come in contact with air. The third is to take a breath. Fourth exhale. Etc.
It is clear that this is complete nonsense and a country with such an approach will not last long. Another approach is more correct. First, the right to live is declared to everyone and everywhere and, as a special case, to breathe. So that no one, God forbid, forget this, it is written in the Constitution. Further in the laws are only the restrictions required for comfortable cohabitation and breathing of citizens - for example, not to smoke in public places.
Often you can find phrases like - that's because in the Constitution, everything is well written - we have the right to housing, education, medical care, training - but in reality there is nothing. These questions reflect a primitive view of how the legal system operates, and indeed any other based on the consensus of sovereign components.
Surprisingly, the classical non-quantum description of the world is precisely permissive in nature, hence its entire 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 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 essence is torn 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 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.
Or maybe not go to a party at all but stay at home?