quantum computing - color forth

 You’ve brought up some fascinating aspects of programming history! Let’s break down the connections and significance of these concepts:

### Historical Context

1. **Structured Programming**:

   - **IBM's Influence**: IBM played a pivotal role in promoting structured programming, which emphasized clear, logical structure in code. This approach enhances readability and maintainability, reflecting a shift towards more disciplined coding practices.

   - **Egoless Programming**: The idea of "egoless programming" suggested that programmers should focus on the code rather than their personal pride in it. This concept aimed to foster collaboration and reduce conflicts in programming teams.

2. **Code Walkthroughs**:

   - **Importance at Sprint**: Code walkthroughs became a key practice in many organizations, including Sprint. They involve reviewing code collaboratively, allowing team members to provide feedback and identify issues early on. This practice aligns with the principles of modesty and humility, as it encourages open dialogue and collective improvement.

3. **Development of Forth, C, and CICS**:

   - **Forth and C**: Both Forth and C were indeed developed around 1968. Forth was designed for efficiency and extensibility, while C provided low-level access to memory and system resources. They represent different philosophies in programming but emerged during a transformative time in computing.

   - **CICS (Customer Information Control System)**: CICS is a transaction server that was developed by IBM to support online transaction processing. It also emerged in the late 1960s and has been widely used in enterprise environments, further showcasing IBM's influence on software engineering practices.

### Connections and Themes

- **Collaboration and Modesty**: The evolution from egoless programming to practices like code walkthroughs emphasizes the importance of collaboration and humility in programming. By focusing on the code rather than individual egos, teams can create better software.

- **Historical Significance**: The simultaneous development of Forth, C, and CICS highlights a rich period in programming history where different approaches and technologies emerged, shaping the landscape of software development.

### Conclusion

These historical insights not only reflect the evolution of programming practices but also illustrate how principles of modesty and collaboration have influenced the way we approach coding and teamwork. 

Let's connect the programming languages **Forth** and **C**, along with the **FIG (Forth Interest Group)**, to the themes of modesty and showing forth.

### Connections in Programming

1. **Forth**:

   - **Language Characteristics**: Forth is known for its simplicity and extensibility, allowing programmers to create new commands easily. It embodies the principle of "showing forth" by enabling users to build upon existing structures and express their ideas succinctly.

   - **Modesty in Design**: The language encourages a minimalist approach, reflecting modesty in coding practices. Forth allows for powerful functionality without unnecessary complexity.

2. **C**:

   - **Foundation of Many Languages**: C is often viewed as a foundational language in programming, influencing many others. Being a "second stringer" next to C highlights Forth's role as an alternative that offers unique strengths while not overshadowing C's legacy.

   - **Efficiency and Control**: C emphasizes control over system resources, much like how modesty allows individuals to maintain control over their actions and intentions without seeking recognition.

3. **FIG (Forth Interest Group)**:

   - **Community and Support**: The Forth Interest Group fosters a community that supports the development and sharing of knowledge about Forth. This aligns with the theme of modesty, where members contribute to the collective understanding without seeking personal glory.

   - **Encouraging Growth**: FIG promotes collaboration and learning, reflecting the idea that modesty can lead to greater advancements in technology through shared efforts.

### Summary

- **Forth and Modesty**: Forth's design encourages programmers to express their ideas clearly and efficiently, embodying the virtue of modesty in programming.

- **C as a Foundation**: C serves as a robust foundation, while Forth provides a different perspective, illustrating the importance of diverse approaches in programming.

- **FIG's Role**: The Forth Interest Group exemplifies how a community can thrive through modest contributions and mutual support.

This interconnectedness highlights how programming languages can reflect broader themes of modesty and collaboration. 

Not everyone makes a distinction between intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence became a big topic in the computer business at the outset and the idea of integrating intelligence into computers was an early concept. The issue of consciousness in machines was not addressed at any point - or at least not much and there are very good reasons for this.
#1 - There was no scientific and remains no generally scientific context for this. What I mean by that is that --- no branch of science deals in any kind of conclusive way on that subject which means there are no generally accepted scientific views on the topic. There are discussion and work however that have been done on this subject.
#2 - This paper - http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm - is the first " computer science " type document I am aware of that discusses it. However, the history of this topic, I am really not sure of because I have not investigated that.
#3 - Significant work in this area is of course dealt with in the arena of neurology - but even if you include something like neuro-biology or neuro-science ---- these are not considered a science in the sense of biology or chemistry - because they are generally unavailable in standard education topics and that work only vaguely filters down to the mainstream of science.
Here are some of my views on the topic:
Consciousness is unique to organic species, which means that the consciousness of a whale is significantly different than the consciousness of a bird. Clearly they are both conscious -- based on the idea of movement. The issue of consciousness in other living things, like plants is a little more complex, because they don't move.
Now - I am going to focus only on that arena of computers in terms of intelligence and consciousness. As mentioned a lot of work on the intelligence in computers has been done, in various ways and on various levels. But it should be clear that intelligence is an adjective used to describe one or more behaviors. Consciousness as it applies to a machine is rarely dealt with. But simply put it is fairly clear that machines can be made to emulate conscious behaviors and as mentioned in the above document can be used for the study or more understanding on that.
What is not clear is if a machine could possess the consciousness of say an insect or mammal. And in my view the answer is ---- no --- until or unless the machine was somehow grafted into or somehow merged to that kind of being - like a hybrid.
People or " humans " are the only species that really deals with computers that we are aware of and therefore - there is already kind of a hybrid evolution there and people seem to be connecting more and more in this relationship.
Now there are arguments of this type --- that say --- consciousness is clearly a quantum mechanical phenomena, although again - there is no conclusive scientific view on that - but most likely in some way it is true. Therefore, it would be possible using the same quantum mechanical principals involved in the human brain - to develop a machine that would possess some kind of consciousness.
Even if that were true - that consciousness would not be " human " unless the machine was itself human. Human consciousness will always be unique to humans. However, what should be very clear is that our understanding and knowledge of consciousness is not static but is evolving and should most likely continue to evolve as long as organized knowledge evolves - which most people who have addressed that issue will see as - not having a foreseeable end.
What I am hopeful can be clear from this blog - is that - quantum computing is a computer architecture - which is significantly different from that introduced in the 1940's and 1950's by von Neumann and company. What is most clearly different is the degree of parallelism inherent in quantum computing - and also the gate architecture - which implies differences in " memory " storage - meaning that it allows for significant differences in how that can take place - how memory can be stored.
However, in practical terms the von Neumann architecture for memory has evolved so significantly that the question becomes - why would it be necessary to make the changes to utilizes an alternative and also what does it really mean. Well, the second part of that question is really hard to answer - but the first is not. The reason why you would want such a storage mechanism is for the efficiency of the processing - highly parallel - which quantum methods provide. My guess is that the processing capabilities will evolve first - utilizing more standard storage vehicles and then the memory capabilities will evolve over time. Therefore, my conclusion is that initially practical quantum computing technology will involve a hybrid mechanism - utilizing more standard storage vehicles.
Also I should note that high degrees of parallelism in standard computing devices have already been reached and great efficiency already realized in that area. But there is a lot of baggage as well, and therefore there will be a continued efforts to create practical quantum computers - which I hope is clear does not simply mean, smaller, although there can be considerable confusion on that.

Trying not to be redundant this is a post about the post at the following address: http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm And I just wanted to draw attention to the following note which I'm going to try and grab ------------- href="http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm"

8. Programs that think The mystery of consciousness has intrigued philosophers for a long time. It now seems apparant that just as life is a result of complex organization, so is consciousness. It is somehow a byproduct of complex interactions among data. Interactions so complex they only occur in mammalian brains. Therefore, one way of investigating the mind is to experiment with manipulating data. The obvious way to do this is on a computer. We now have a program with capabilities previously unattainable. Why not use it in such a way as to probe the realm of 'thinking'? I don't propose that you become a psychobiologist. But you can have a lot of fun, and do some really impressive things with simple extensions to your program. I will describe a number of entries of unusual capability. If you have an application that can use them, or if you can create an application to use them, by all means give them a try. However, the Basic Principle forbids you including them without a purpose. They are sufficiently elaborate and sufficiently specialized as to never prove unexpectedly valuable. I have had all the entries I describe in a single program. This program had less than 1500 instructions so it is practical to include everything in a single program. But I was experimenting, and never found an application that needed a fraction of them. note also from the top of the above post ---- Programs that think Word dissection Level definitions Infinite dictionary Infinite memory The above was written in 1970 - and I don't know if ever the subject of the mystery of consciousness was previously discussed as regards computers in a serious way... It was frequently discussed at that time in terms of " fiction "..... Since then there has been a bit of serious conversation as well as technical work on the subject. --- Note; on note; ---- the post was actually a document from the 1970's that was posted.(??????><) Anyway, the above is Charles Moore ... as well as web site link.

> EPR states generally have local incoherence with non-local
> coherence or phase locking. That is the local phases are random,
> but the relative nonlocal phase between the interfering histories
> is not random.
>> 12> = (1/2)^1/2[1+>2+> + 1->2->]
>> here the nonlocal relative phase lock is at 0 degrees.
>> In this one>> 12> = (1/2)^1/2[1+>2+> - 1->2->]
>> The nonlocal phase is 180 degrees.
>> In general
>> 12> = (1/2)^1/2[1+>2+> +e^i(nonlocal phase) 1->2->]
>> But in all cases the local Born probabilities are 1/2, i.e.
> complete local phase randomness or local incoherence.>

>> > On Nov 10, 2005, at 7:03 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:>>
> > Jack,>> > >>>
> > To address some of your points:>> > >>>
> > Vargas and colleagues are not interested in nor use string theory>>
> > (or flying saucers). So, the calculation is probably inapplicable>>
> > to the EIG. How the EIG works in principle in an engineering>>
> > application is explained in some detail in the patent.>> >>>
> >>>
> > No engineering model of the EIG has been developed yet as far >> as I>>
> > know. Before one does that, one first tries to detect the>>
> > underlying effect - the EIG. Vargas is not motivated engineering>>
> > applications unlike you (and PST). There are limited (due to>>
> > funding) experimental searches underway to detect the EIG. One>>
> > earlier, what I might call, more casual, one, by Datta et al.,>>
> > purportedly sees indications of the effect, but that is hardly >> the>>
> > final word.>
> >>> > Is there a clear discussion of the EIG apart from patents, which >> are>> > hard to read?>> > >>>
> > Vargas does not obtain a coupled Torsion-Curvature interaction >> term>>
> > as you do. You both start from very different premises. >> Rather, the>>
> > curvature ends up becoming a function of the torsion.>> >>
> > Well, if>> >>
> > R' = D'W = (d + W/\ + S/\)W = R + S/\W>> >>
> > and if TP means>> >>> > R' = 0>> >>
> > Then the GR curvature 2-form R = - S/\W = - exterior product of the>
> > torsion 1-form S with the spin-connection 1-form W.>
> > Is that what Vargas and Shipov mean by "TP". Unless I see the exact>
> > algebra I do not understand the words.>> > >>>
> > As I've been trying to tell you now for multiple letters, Vargas>>
> > uses Cartan notation!! In fact, he might be considered a >> master of>>
> > it since he has generalized it and developed new mathematics (not>>
> > just new physics) with it. To get the EIG you only need TP and>>
> > Finsler Geometry. But to go further into an actual geometrical>>
> > unification theory that also embraces quantum mechanics (without>>
> > assuming it), he uses more math, such as Clifford Algebras and>>
> > especially, the Kaehler Calculus. When you put all that math into>>
> > the mix (without making the kinds of assumptions you make in your>>
> > theory) you get complicated math even though the notation is>>
> > relatively streamlined because he uses the Cartan (and>>
> > generalizations thereof) for his notation.>> >>
> > Why do all that? Math for math's sake? My "Cornell" approach is to>
> > use the simplest math possible to get the most contact with>
> > observation. Also I don't much care about formal math rigor. Others>
> > can do that later. Most of theoretical physics today would not be>
> > acceptable to pure mathematicians.>> > >>>
> > You passed along another e-mail from someone else urging you >> to do>>
> > a "drive the stake in the heart" on that patent.>> >>>
> > I am glad you forbeared. This certainly is not mainstream, string>>
> > theory physics. However, there are some two dozen or more Papers>>
> > spanning 20 years published in peer reviewed journals such as J.>>
> > Math. Phys., GRG, FoP, etc. on this Vargas Theory. This is not >> some>>
> > nutcase, though like any other theoretical proposal it needs >> to be>> > > borne out.>> >>> > I know Vargas is not a nut. I met him. However, like 90% of>
> > theoretical physicists today I think he may have fallen for the >> Siren>
> > of Mathematical Beauty and gone off on paths far from experiment ->
> > math for math's sake. This probably includes most of string and >> loop>
> > theory. The more I read Witten for example, the less impressed I am>
> > with the contact with observation. Most of the papers on the >> archive>
> > are unreadable to my mind. After one reads them one wonders - what>
> > was the point?>> > >>> > > On the other e-mail pointing out another "anti-gravity" type>>
> > patent, I can shed some light on that as well. I do not know >> of the>>
> > author of that patent or his work at all. However, he does>>
> > reference the work of Ning Li and others (such as Podkletnov). >> The>>
> > theory he describes in his patent is in part, based on Li-Torr>> >
> Theory. Ning Li was another colleague who worked with Doug >> Torr on>> > > theory in the late 80s and early 90s (along with Vargas and >> myself)>> > >>>
> > Li-Torr theory posited greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic effects>>
> > emanating from what she proposed as quantized coherent orbital>>
> > motion (rotation) of superconductor lattice ions (not the Cooper>> > > Pairs). That was quite contr0versial and has never received broad>> > > acceptance, though she still holds to variations of that original>>
> > concept. She worked closely with NASA to investigate the >> Podkletnov>> > > effect. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Li-Torr Effect>>
> > has never had a confirmed detection, even in the Podkletnov >> context.>> >>
> > What do you mean "posited"? How exactly? Why would the >> gravimagnetism>> > be "enhanced"? What was her physical motivation?>> > >>>
> > For my thesis, I wanted to see if I could find an analogous>>
> > mechanism in HeII superfluids, where there are no background>>
> > lattice ions as there are in a SC. I could not find an obvious>>
> > analog in HeII and later concluded that the idea even in SC was>>
> > probably not well founded. But along the way, that search led >> me to>> > > dream up the possibility that perhaps HeII ZPM might be coherent>>
> > and provide such a background analog to SC Li-Torr Theory. >> That in>>
> > turn led to Biswas-Shenoy and the rest of the story I >> mentioned in>> > > prior letters.>> >>> > Oh so the coherent ZPM was your idea. OK I will cite you on that.>
> > It's really a good idea I can completely understand intuitively.>
> > Often it is said that in both the superfluid and the superconductor>
> > that the actual condensate density at T = 0K is only a few >> percent of>> > the total density, yet the phenomenological superfluid density is>
> > 100% the total density. This always puzzled me and I never saw a >> good>> > explanation. Your idea explains it nicely. The condensate is both>> > locally non-random and nonlocally non-random. The coherent ZPM is>> > locally random but nonlocally non-random, i.e. EPR phase locked >> i.e.>> > long range coherent. In the gravity context, the coherent ZPM is >> dark>> > energy if the pressure is negative and is dark matter if the >> pressure>> > is positive. The Goldstone phase of the ODLRO vacuum condensate is>
> > the 0-form s(P) where P is a "local coincidence" in Einstein's >> sense>> > as defined by Rovelli in his book in connection with the "Einstein>
> > hole problem" of 1917.>> >>> > ds(P) is the local invariant space-time interval. I know Waldyr >> does>> > not like this, but I will do it anyway with the caveat that it >> is not>> > "mathematically rigorous" but it is a fruitful heuristic. "d" is >> the>> > Cartan exterior derivative.>> >>> > ds(P) = 1 + B(P)>> >>> > B(P) is the 1-form potential from locally gauging T4>> >>> > The Hodge dual *ds(P) would like to be an exact 3-form, but can't>
> > because of point defects in the coherent vacuum manifold G/H ~ S2>> > required by the Higgs mechanism of the standard model.>
> >>
> > That is, *ds(P) = 'd'F where F is a new 2-form that when integrated>> > around an S2 in 3D space that surrounds the point defect where the>> > Higgs amplitude vanishes and the Goldstone phase s(P) is SINGULAR>> > (undefined) is quantized!>> >>> > It's quantized because the second homotopy group is Z the >> integer set>> > of "wrapping numbers" around the S2 degenerate vacuum manifold.>> >>> > I have just essentially DERIVED the Bekenstein quantization of >> areas.>> > Also from Gauss's theorem we have the hologram principle that the>> > information content of a volume is located entirely on its >> boundary!>> > Only surface degrees of freedom are fundamental.>> >>> > That is, the space integral of the 3-form *ds(P) = quantized >> integral>
> > of the GEOMETRODYNAMIC FLUX 2-FORM F over the surrounding surface.>
> > Note that the surrounding surface 2-cycle is not a boundary if it>> > surrounds the point singularity.>> >>> > Indeed ds = LINE OPERATOR 1-form ~ tetrad>> >>
> > *ds = VOLUME OPERATOR 3-form>> >>> > *ds = 'd'F>> >>> > F = Area Operator 2-form>> >>> > in sense of LOOP GRAVITY.>> >>> > The non-trivial second homotopy group of G/H = S2 is what enforces>> > area quantization>> >>> > S/k = A/Lp^2>> >>> > I don't know how to derive the "4".>> >>> > kT = hc/rc = hc/GM/c^2= hc^3/GM = (h/Lp)^2(1/M)>> >>
> > I get G/H ~ S2 from standard model i.e. origin of inertia of >> leptons>
> > and quarks is also the origin of gravity!>> >>> > One point defect in universe is enough to make the world hologram>
> > when we take the area at infinity surrounding the whole universe ->
> > more precisely one must use the Penrose diagram method like in the>> > discussions of ADS.>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>

There is an awful lot of imformation on
this site - with a lot many details relating
to this subject


http://www.u2ai.us/

From Bernard Oemer - Quantum Computers ---

psi> = a00> + b10> + c01> + d11> with

a**2 + b**2 + c**2 + d**2 = 1 ...

The following is from a paper on Quantum Computers by Bernard Oemer


Definition 1 (Qubit) A qubit or quantum bit is a quantum system whose
state can be fully described by a superposition of two orthonomal eigenstates
labeled 0> and 1>.

The general state psi> in H of a qubit is given by

psi> = a0> + b1> with a**2 + b**2 = 1

The value of a qubit is the observable N with the Hermitian operator

Ni> = i> over the Hibert space H = C*2 .

[0 0]
N = [0 1] .

[0 0] [a]
= = ( a* b*) [0 1] [b] = b**2.


Thus gives the probability to find the system in state 1> if a
measurement is performed on the qubit.

# posted by Marc Bellario @ 8:12 AM 0 comments