We consider the issue of computability at the most fundamental level of physical reality: the Planck scale. To this aim, we consider the theoretical model of a quantum computer on a non commutative space background, which is a computational model for quantum gravity. In this domain, all computable functions are the laws of physics in their most primordial form, and non computable mathematics finds no room in the physical world. Moreover, we show that a theorem that classically was considered true but non computable, at the Planck scale becomes computable but non decidable. This fact is due to the change of logic for observers in a quantum-computing universe: from standard quantum logic and classical logic, to paraconsistent logic.
We consider the issue of computability at the most fundamental level of physical reality: the Planck scale. To this aim, we consider the theoretical model of a quantum computer on a non commutative space background, which is a computational model for quantum gravity. In this domain, all computable functions are the laws of physics in their most primordial form, and non computable mathematics finds no room in the physical world. Moreover, we show that a theorem that classically was considered true but non computable, at the Planck scale becomes computable but non decidable. This fact is due to the change of logic for observers in a quantum-computing universe: from standard quantum logic and classical logic, to paraconsistent logic.
Abstract. Is the universe computable? If yes, is it computationally a polynomial place? In standard quantum mechanics, which permits infinite parallelism and the infinitely precise specification of states, a negative answer to both questions is not ruled out. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that NP-complete problems are intractable in the physical world. Likewise, computational problems known to be algorithmically uncomputable do not seem to be computable by any physical algorithms on the one hand, and physical computers on the other, finds a natural explanation if the universe is assumed to be algorithmic; that is, that physical reality is the product of discrete subphysical information processing equivalent to the actions of a probabilistic Turing machine. This assumption can be reconciled with the observed exponentiality of quantum systems at microscopic scales, and the consequent possibility of implementing Shor's quantum polynomial time algorithm at that scale, provided the degree of superposition is intrinsically, finitely upper-bounded. If this bound is associated with the quantum-classical divide (the Heisenberg cut), a natural resolution to the quantum measurement problem arises. From this viewpoint, macroscopic classicality is an evidence that the universe is in BPP, and both questions raised above receive affirmative answers. A recently proposed computational model of quantum measurement, which relates the Heisenberg cut to the discreteness of Hilbert space, is briefly discussed. A connection to quantum gravity is noted. Our results are compatible with the philosophy that mathematical truths are independent of the laws of physics.
General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at the Planck scale. This contention can be examined if a quantum computer is set to operate at a rate that exceeds the classical limit of one operation per Planck volume-time, or equivalently 2491 m−3 s−1. Here we quantify the relation between the logical qubit count and the extent to which classicality is challenged. We argue that 500 logical qubits are sufficient to reject theories confined to a laboratory. We account for the operational cost of computation and communication at all scales up to and including the observable universe, ultimately constrained by a 1600-logical-qubit computer. Remarkably, current plans for commercial quantum computers are projected to surpass this limit, thereby putting the quantum-gravity standoff to the test.
Is the universe computable? If yes, is it computationally a polynomial place? In standard quantum mechanics, which permits infinite parallelism and the infinitely precise specification of states, a negative answer to both questions is not ruled out. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that NP‐complete problems are intractable in the physical world. Likewise, computational problems known to be algorithmically uncomputable do not seem to be computable by any physical means. We suggest that this close correspondence between the efficiency and power of abstract algorithms on the one hand, and physical computers on the other, finds a natural explanation if the universe is assumed to be algorithmic; that is, that physical reality is the product of discrete sub‐physical information processing equivalent to the actions of a probabilistic Turing machine. This assumption can be reconciled with the observed exponentiality of quantum systems at microscopic scales, and the consequent possibility of implementing Shor’s quantum polynomial time algorithm at that scale, provided the degree of superposition is intrinsically, finitely upper‐bounded. If this bound is associated with the quantum‐classical divide (the Heisenberg cut), a natural resolution to the quantum measurement problem arises. From this viewpoint, macroscopic classicality is an evidence that the universe is in BPP, and both questions raised above receive affirmative answers. A recently proposed computational model of quantum measurement, which relates the Heisenberg cut to the discreteness of Hilbert space, is briefly discussed. A connection to quantum gravity is noted. Our results are compatible with the philosophy that mathematical truths are independent of the laws of physics.
Any computer can create a model of reality. The hypothesis that quantum computer can generate such a model designated as quantum, which coincides with the modeled reality, is discussed. Its reasons are the theorems about the absence of “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics. The quantum modeling requires the axiom of choice. The following conclusions are deduced from the hypothesis. A quantum model unlike a classical model can coincide with reality. Reality can be interpreted as a quantum computer. The physical processes represent computations of the quantum computer. Quantum information is the real fundament of the world. The conception of quantum computer unifies physics and mathematics and thus the material and the ideal world. Quantum computer is a non-Turing machine in principle. Any quantum computing can be interpreted as an infinite classical computational process of a Turing machine. Quantum computer introduces the notion of “actually infinite computational process”. The discussed hypothesis is consistent with all quantum mechanics. The conclusions address a form of neo-Pythagoreanism: Unifying the mathematical and physical, quantum computer is situated in an intermediate domain of their mutual transformation.
Nature's laws in the domain where relativistic effects, gravitational effects and quantum effects are all comparatively strong are far from understood. This domain is called the Planck scale. Conceivably, a theory can be constructed where the quantum nature of phenomena at such scales can be attributed to something fundamentally simpler. However, arguments that quantum mechanics cannot be explained in terms of any classical theory using only classical logic seem to be based on sound mathematical considerations: there can't be physical laws that require "conspiracy". It may therefore be surprising that there are several explicit quantum systems where these considerations apparently do not apply. In the lecture we will show several such counterexamples. These are quantum models that do have a classical origin. The most curious of these models is superstring theory. This theory is often portrayed as to underly the quantum field theory of the subatomic particles, including the "Standard Model". So now the question is asked: how can this model feature "conspiracy", and how bad is that? Is there conspiracy in the vacuum fluctuations?
We describe a method to axiomatize computations in deterministic Turing machines (TMs). When applied to computations in non-deterministic TMs, this method may produce contradictory (and therefore trivial) theories, considering classical logic as the underlying logic. By substituting in such theories the underlying logic by a paraconsistent logic we define a new computation model, the paraconsistent Turing machine. This model allows a partial simulation of superposed states of quantum computing. Such a feature allows the definition of paraconsistent algorithms which solve (with some restrictions) the well-known Deutsch's and Deutsch-Jozsa problems. This first model of computation, however, does not adequately represent the notions of entangled states and relative phase, which are key features in quantum computing. In this way, a more sharpened model of paraconsistent TMs is defined, which better approaches quantum computing features. Finally, we define complexity classes for such models, and establish some relationships with classical complexity classes.