= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Quotes and Notes on Scott Aaronson’s "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine" - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (82)
For this not to be the case would require a heck of a lot of new physics.
Also and separately, it seems very hard to me to prepare an experiment to test this assertion.
"not to be the case"? Not sure what you mean, new physics for what? During my stint in biophysics long ago I observed that channel-level fluctuations wash out and manifest at most as slight variations in the delay and amplitude of the aggregate impulse. Even that is probably more due to a number of unrelated issues, like the synaptic vesicle size, neurotransmitter concentration and other macroscopic events.
That can be decided once someone figures out what exactly ought to be tested, inputs and outputs. It's not clear to me at this point what it would even mean to test this.
I'm guessing you meant that the question is whether they're actually amplified up to macroscopic levels in this situation. I should have figured that that was what you meant just from context.