What is the correct picture of our world? Are noise and errors part of the essence of matters, and the beautiful perfect patterns we see around us, as well as the notions of information and computation, are just derived concepts in a noisy world? Or do noise and errors just express our imperfect perception of otherwise perfect laws of nature? Talking about an inherently noisy reality may well reflect a better understanding across various scales and areas.

### Recent Comments

pavfer on Another Forgotten Bet: Is Don… Gil Kalai on To cheer you up in difficult t… Eitan Bachmat on To cheer you up in difficult t… 구글의 양자컴퓨터 vs 고전 시뮬레이… on Gil’s Collegial Quantum… Anonymous on To cheer you up in difficult t… Gil Kalai on To cheer you up in difficult t… Ehud Friedgut on To cheer you up in difficult t… Anonymous on To cheer you up in difficult t… Gil Kalai on To cheer you up in difficult t… Anonymous for the th… on To cheer you up in difficult t… Yuval Rabani on A Proof by Induction with a… Gil Kalai on To cheer you up in difficult t… -
### Recent Posts

- To cheer you up in difficult times 4: Women In Theory present — I will survive
- To cheer you up in difficult times 3: A guest post by Noam Lifshitz on the new hypercontractivity inequality of Peter Keevash, Noam Lifshitz, Eoin Long and Dor Minzer
- Harsanyi’s Sweater
- To cheer you up in difficult times II: Mysterious matching news by Gal Beniamini, Naom Nisan, Vijay Vazirani and Thorben Tröbst!
- Trees not Cubes! Memories of Boris Tsirelson
- A small update from Israel and memories from Singapore: Partha Dasgupta, Robin Mason, Frank Ramsey, and 007
- Game Theory – on-line Course at IDC, Herzliya
- TYI44: “What Then, To Raise an Old Question, is Mathematics?”
- Kelman, Kindler, Lifshitz, Minzer, and Safra: Towards the Entropy-Influence Conjecture

### Top Posts & Pages

- To cheer you up in difficult times 4: Women In Theory present -- I will survive
- 8866128975287528³+(-8778405442862239)³+(-2736111468807040)³
- TYI 30: Expected number of Dice throws
- Answer: Lord Kelvin, The Age of the Earth, and the Age of the Sun
- Equiangular lines with a fixed angle and other breakthroughs from Yufei Zhao's blog
- Elchanan Mossel's Amazing Dice Paradox (your answers to TYI 30)
- Aubrey de Grey: The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5
- Game Theory 2020
- Gil's Collegial Quantum Supremacy Skepticism FAQ

### RSS

While reading Gregory Chaitin’s MetaMath I jotted down some notes:

“Randomness is irreducible, incompressible.

Pattern stems from a subset of randomness.”

I’d consider noise as a subset of randomness containing compressible pattern. As for errors: some – like the halting problem – are unpredictable.

I note that you and most people use laws (plural) of nature.

For laws to be perfect, predictable and without error, I’ve been wondering if that implies irreducibility hence randomness.

Irreducible laws of nature.

I somehow feel happy with this answer, despite the paradox it implies.

Pingback: Readings (II) 01/23/09 | Venture Capital Bloggers Network

“Are noise and errors part of the essence of matters, and the beautiful perfect patterns we see around us, as well as the notions of information and computation, are just derived concepts in a noisy world? Or do noise and errors just express our imperfect perception of otherwise perfect laws of nature?”

I hate to have to choose. Perhaps it can be both.

Gil,

A bit off topic, but have you seen:

Phys. Rev. A 79, 012332 (2009)

Fibonacci scheme for fault-tolerant quantum computation

by Panos Aliferis and John Preskill?

Given your skepticism regarding error correction in connection with Quantum Computation (I believe my assumption is correct), I was curious what you thought of the article.

Dear Michael, fualt-tolerance quantum computation is based on a remarkable theorem called the “threshold theorem” which was proved by several groups of researchers in the mid 90s. Since then there have been significant progress in extending the scope of the theorem in terms of the type of noise it can handle, and reducing the numerical value of the threshold.

A breakthrough work by Knill uses error-detection codes rather than error-correction codes and massive post-selection. This allows one to raise the value of the threshold (based on numerical simulations) to 0.03 or so. This idea also leads to a substantially higher provable bounds and there are several papers, including I believe the one you cited, that demonstrate it. This is an exciting direction.

Pingback: Noise Sensitivity Lecture and Tales « Combinatorics and more

Pingback: Randomness in Nature « Combinatorics and more