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
-
Recent Posts
- My Notices AMS Paper on Quantum Computers – Eight Years Later, a Lecture by Dorit Aharonov, and a Toast to Michael Ben-Or
- Arturo Merino, Torsten Mütze, and Namrata Apply Gliders for Hamiltonicty!
- Updates from Cambridge
- Random Circuit Sampling: Fourier Expansion and Statistics
- Plans and Updates: Complementary Pictures
- Updates and Plans IV
- Three Remarkable Quantum Events at the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing in Berkeley
- Yair Shenfeld and Ramon van Handel Settled (for polytopes) the Equality Cases For The Alexandrov-Fenchel Inequalities
- On the Limit of the Linear Programming Bound for Codes and Packing
Top Posts & Pages
- My Notices AMS Paper on Quantum Computers - Eight Years Later, a Lecture by Dorit Aharonov, and a Toast to Michael Ben-Or
- TYI 30: Expected number of Dice throws
- Elchanan Mossel's Amazing Dice Paradox (your answers to TYI 30)
- Quantum Computers: A Brief Assessment of Progress in the Past Decade
- The Quantum Debate is Over! (and other Updates)
- Extremal Combinatorics III: Some Basic Theorems
- R(5,5) ≤ 48
- Amazing: Hao Huang Proved the Sensitivity Conjecture!
- Aubrey de Grey: The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5
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