= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mark_Friedenbach comments on [LINK] Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience? - 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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
Sorry, got mixed up with cameroncowan. Anyway, to the original point:
You said "Once they've finished the proof, you record what's written on their paper, and reverse the entire simulation... Looking at what they wrote on the paper doesn't mean you have to communicate with them."
My interpretation--which may be wrong--is that you are suggesting that the person running the simulation record the state of the simulation at the moment the problem is solved, or at least the part of the simulator state having to do with the paper. However the process of extracting information out of the simulation -- saving state -- is irreversable, at least if you want it to survive rewinding the simulation.
To put differently, if the simulation is fully reversible, then you run it forwards, run it backwards, and that the end you have absolutely zero knowledge about what happened inbetween. Any preserved state that wasn't there at the beginning would mean that the process wasn't fully reversed.
Looking at the paper is communicating with the simulation. It maybe be a one-way communication, but that is enough.
I'm suggesting that the person running the simulation knows the state of the simulation at all times. If this bothers you, pretend everything is being done digitally, on a classical computer, with exponential slowdown.
Such a calculation can be done reversibly without ever passing information into the system.
What do you mean by "knows the state of the simulation"? What is the point of this exercise?
Yes the machine running the simulation knows the current state of the simulation at any given point (ignoring fully homomorphic encryption). It must however forget this intermediate state when the computation is reversed, including any copies/checkpoints it has. Otherwise we're not talking about a reversible process. Do we agree on this point?
My original post was:
How does your setup of a simulated person performing mathmatics, then being forgotten as the simulation is run backwards address this concern?