A strong subject -- but 100% well-grounded. Yesterday I saw a RELATIVELY new youtube manifesto from
Sabine Hossenfelder (whom John has often urged us to track, to keep up with the most serious new advanced physics) and David Deutsch and a moderator named OConnor. ANYONE who has any interest in how the universe really works, OR in quantum technology, really should ignore the commercial and click on the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bux0SjaUCY0 . This video is a "small step" in a way, but opening a door can also be a small step... and this door leads directly to what 99% of human "experts" need to know, to know what REAL quantum physics WILL be doing to radically change our lives, our technologies, our politics of war and peace and money, and our very souls sooner than we usually imagine possible.
COULD changes in technology (and the means of production and the means of war) possibly have such huge impacts? Given the lessons of history, we really should take this seriously. If we worry whether the changes will be good or bad for all of humanity, we really should try to understand what they are. That is especially true when we discuss how the universe works, at a most fundamental level -- and when the known new reality is radically different from even what most physicists have learned (except for a few who thoroughly understand the most relevant physics in nanohub.org, device and condensed matter physics).
I saw this great video for the first time yesterday when I was reviewing a VERY advanced paper on a major advance in quantum technology. I recommended adding citations to David Deutsch of Oxford who INVENTED the quantum turing machine (the foundation of >99% of US funding in quantum computing, for which I was the NSF representative until my retirement in 2015). More precisely, I recommended citing:
Deutsch, D. (1985). Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 400(1818), 97-117.
and
Deutsch, D. (1998). The fabric of reality. Penguin UK.
I do NOT believe that Deutsch's multiverse theory (which I call EWD, Everett-Wheeler-Deutsch)
is the full theory of how our universe works, mathematically! Iam reminded of Brian Josephson's argument: You can always imagine that the universe we see is actually just an approximation, like a world resting on a turtle deeper down... and and another turtle on thet... turtles all the way down. I really DO believe I have a
better theory, based on studying the emergent behavior predicted by Einsteinian "Classical Fields"
M Carmeli - 2001 - books.google.com )
as derived in several papers I have published. HOWEVER: in the case of ORDINARY physics of electrons, electromagnetism, and ions, EWD is EQUIVALENT to the relevant Einsteinian
model, if correct models are used for the macroscopic devices we use to observe quantum systems.
And so, for any technology based on electronics and photonics, or for understanding consciousness in brains like ours based on such physics ( Regular cycles of forward and backward signal propagation in prefrontal cortex and in consciousness ), UNDERSTANDING EWD is the correct foundation for the next big progress we need to make
in all these fields. For example, UNDERSTANDING EWD IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL to the next big step,
the development AND MANAGEMENT of Quantum AGI (https://patents.justia.com/inventor/paul-j-werbos ) and the understanding of the quantum effects which ensure that there are parallel copies of every one of us which affect our futureS and our fateS. See https://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2021/11/q-basic-realities-of-living-in.html .
If you think carefully about the fundamental points I just made -- please notice that quantum intelligence
is NOT necessary to understanding those LEVELS of intelligence or consciousness (including emotions, feelings, qualia) which exist in mammal or bird brains, OR in the new explosion of AGI based on classic QED electronics and photonics. The true picture of such QED brains fits the image of computers called "Romeo and Juliet" in George Bernard Shaw's number one play https://nmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1375.pdf .
To develop a correct inner understanding of the emerging new levels of human and machine consciousness, I strongly urge you all to read that play and preface, if you haven't yet.
QED AGI can replicate all the pious proud emotions people often cite, arguing for the superiority of humans and human souls over QED AGI. That is a correct picture.
BUT: some of you are aware of how Walter Freeman, one of the world's two top systems neuroscientists two decades ago (when I was close to both), included papers both by me AND by Vitiello in his final summing up, the book edited by Freeman and Kozma (now in a second edition). Vitiello tried to use physics more advanced than QED to try to explain consciousness. More precisely, he built on EWT, the more proven half of the "Standard Model of Physics" as defined by Weinberg, who co-invented EWT and wrote THE authoritative three volumen textbook on mainstream Quantum Field Theory. EWT is NOT necessary to understand that level of consciousness exhibited by mammal brains (or by "Romeo and Juliet" AGI). But in my view, AN EXTENSION of
EWT, as needed to understand dark matter, IS necessary to understand human potential beyond that level -- EXACTLY AS SHAW portrays!!!
===========
In my view, human survival even through 2100 urgently demands major progress in BOTH areas: (1) radical improvement in human potential, including even use of physics beyond QED to "see the sky" and see ourselves more than what QED alone offers; (2) full deployment, understanding and open, benign management of quantum AGI technology.
As an old man (forbidden to use the best known antiaging technology, by order of FDA), without more allies ambitious enough to learn how to take on more of the work, I focus for now on (2). The actual deployment of the full QAGI technology, defined in the patent and in the MANY supporting papers, requires more research centers able to understand the new technology, which requires understanding several of the fundamental IMPLICATIONS OF EWD which very few physicists (let alone policy people or philosophers) know today.
For example... to understand and build on the most advanced papers today, like what I reviewed yesterday (being prepared for submission)... it is essential to know what a wave function psi really is, for use in the mathematics of design and design analysis. When I managed reviews of quantum technology, either for the big interagency efforts or for the program I led (https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3310 ) , MOST highly respected researchers with respected credentials failed review by reviewers aware of modern condensed matter physics because they still believed what they were taught. They believed that the wave function in quantum mechanics represents the state of our knowledge of a system, and can thus represent MIXED thermodynamic states like what we see in real devices. They simply would not work! Even places like DOD fully understood and accounted for that even before
I joined the group; the people who decided to do massive funding of quantum technology did so only after
they saw the paper by Gersheld and Chuang Bulk spin-resonance quantum computation in Science showing how a QTM can be built using the "density operator" way of representing thermodynamc states. A particular value of the wave function, in EWD, represents ONE POSSIBLE state of the universe... or even one possible state of an electronic or photonic device. Only by understanding the evolution of such states through time can one do valid device simulations or calculations. Such work has in fact begun, demonstrating the kinds of massive benefits described in the new patent, in supporting papers filed with USPTO and in the directories of QAGI LLC (of which I am not an owner, by mutual agreement).
Is there a university or government or industry lab interested in building up the new physics capability applied to
the relevant multivariate master equations and thermodynamics needed to become centers of QAGI, in partnership?
No comments:
Post a Comment