Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:55:16.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine

from Part Four - Biology, Mind, and the Outer Reaches of Quantum Computation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2016

Scott Aaronson
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139, USA
S. Barry Cooper
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Andrew Hodges
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will. I focus relatively narrowly on a notion that I call ‘Knightian freedom’: a certain kind of in-principle physical unpredictability that goes beyond probabilistic unpredictability. Other, more metaphysical, aspects of free will I regard as possibly outside the scope of science.

I examine a viewpoint, suggested independently by Carl Hoefer, Cristi Stoica, and even Turing himself, that tries to find scope for ‘freedom’ in the universe's boundary conditions rather than in the dynamical laws. Taking this viewpoint seriously leads to many interesting conceptual problems. I investigate how far one can go toward solving those problems and, along the way, I encounter (among other things) the no-cloning theorem, the measurement problem, decoherence, chaos, the arrow of time, the holographic principle, Newcomb's paradox, Boltzmann brains, algorithmic information theory, and the common prior assumption. I also compare the viewpoint explored here with the more radical speculations of Roger Penrose.

The result of all this is an unusual perspective on time, quantum mechanics, and causation, of which I myself remain skeptical but which has several appealing features. Among other things, it suggests interesting empirical questions in neuro-science, physics, and cosmology; and it takes a millennia-old philosophical debate into some underexplored territory.

When I was a teenager, Alan Turing was at the top of my pantheon of scientific heroes, above even Darwin, Ramanujan, Einstein, and Feynman. Some of the reasons were obvious: the founding of computer science, the proof of the unsolvability of the Entscheidungsproblem, the breaking of the Nazi Enigma code, the unapologetic nerdiness and the near-martyrdom for human rights. But beyond the facts of his biography, I idolized Turing as an ‘ über-reductionist’: the scientist who had gone further than anyone before him to reveal the mechanistic nature of reality. Through his discovery of computational universality, as well as the Turing Test criterion for intelligence, Turing finally unmasked the pretensions of anyone who claimed there was anything more to mind, brain, or the physical world than the unfolding of an immense computation.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Once and Future Turing
Computing the World
, pp. 193 - 296
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, S. 2002. Book review of A New Kind of Science.Quantum Inf. Comput., 2(5), 410–423. quant-ph/0206089.Google Scholar
Aaronson, S. 2005. NP-complete problems and physical reality. SIGACT News, March. quant-ph/0502072.
Aaronson, S. 2009. Quantum copy-protection and quantum money. pp. 229–242 of: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computational Complexity.Google Scholar
Aaronson, S. 2013. Quantum Computing Since Democritus.Cambridge University Press.
Aaronson, S., and Christiano, P. 2012. Quantum money from hidden subspaces. pp. 41–60 of: Proc. ACM STOC. arXiv:1203.4740.Google Scholar
Antunes, L., and Fortnow, L. 2009. Sophistication revisited.Theory Comput. Syst., 45(1), 150–161.Google Scholar
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G. 1982. Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities.Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 91–94.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1976. Agreeing to disagree.Ann. Stat., 4(6), 1236–1239.Google Scholar
Balaguer, M. 2009. Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem.Bradford Books.
Bell, J. S. 1987. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics.Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, C. H., and Brassard, G. 1984. Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing. pp. 175–179 of: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computers Systems and Signal Processing.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., and Wootters, W. 1993. Teleporting an unknown quantum state by dual classical and EPR channels.Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 1895–1898.Google Scholar
Bernstein, E., and Vazirani, U. 1997. Quantum complexity theory.SIAM J. Comput., 26(5), 1411–1473. First appeared in ACM STOC, 1993.Google Scholar
Bierce, A. 2009. The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce: 1909–1912.Cornell University Library.
Bohm, D. 1952. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables.Phys. Rev., 85, 166–193.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. 2010. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge.Dover. First published in 1961.
Bostrom, N. 2002. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy.Routledge.
Bousso, R. 2000. Positive vacuum energy and the N-bound.J. High Energy Phys., 0011(038). hep-th/0010252.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. 2010. From Eternity to Here.Dutton.
Chaitin, G. J. 1975. A theory of program size formally identical to information theory.J. ACM, 329–340.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.Oxford.
Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., and Holt, R. A. 1969. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, 880–884.Google Scholar
Compton, A. H. 1957. Science and Man's freedom.The Atlantic, 200(4), 71–74.Google Scholar
Conway, J. H., and Kochen, S. 2009. The strong free will theorem.Notices AMS, 56(2), 226–232. arXiv:0807.3286.Google Scholar
Cowen, T., and Hanson, R. 2012. Are disagreements honest?J. Econ. Methodology. At hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf.Google Scholar
de Boer, J. 2003. Introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence. University of Amsterdam Institute for Theoretical Physics (ITFA) Technical Report 03-02.
Dennett, D. C. 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.MIT Press.
Dennett, D. C. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.Simon & Schuster.
Deutsch, D. 1985a. Quantum theory as a universal physical theory.Int. J. Theor. Phys., 24, 1–41.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. 1985b. Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer.Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A400, 97–117.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. 2011. The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations that Transform the World.Allen Lane.
Dick, P. K. 1998. The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick. Volume 4: The Minority Report. Citadel Twilight.
Dyson, L., Kleban, M., and Susskind, L. 2002. Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant.J. High Energy Phys.. hep-th/0208013.Google Scholar
Farhi, E., Gosset, D., Hassidim, A., Lutomirski, A., and Shor, P. 2012. Quantum money from knots. pp. 276–289 of: Proc. Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS). arXiv:1004.5127.Google Scholar
Fischer, J.M. 1995. The Metaphysics of FreeWill: An Essay on Control.Wiley–Blackwell.
Fischer, J. M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will.Wiley–Blackwell.
Fritz, T. 2012. Bell's theorem without free will. arXiv:1206.5115.
Gács, P., Tromp, J., and Vitányi, P. M. B. 2001. Algorithmic statistics.IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 47(6), 2443–2463.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. 1974. Mathematical Games. Scientific American, March, 102. Reprinted with addendum in The Colossal Book of Mathematics.
Geroch, R., and Hartle, J. B. 1986. Computability and physical theories.Found. Phys., 16(6), 533–550.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. 1986. Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems.Phys. Rev. D, 34, 470–491.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. W. 1974. Black hole explosions?Nature, 248(5443), 30.Google Scholar
Hodges, A. 2012. Alan Turing: The Enigma.Princeton University Press. Centenary edition. First published 1983.
Hodgkin, A., and Huxley, A. 1952. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerves.J. Physiol., 117, 500–544.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C. 2002. Freedom from the inside out. pp. 201–222 of: Callender, C. (ed.), Time, Reality, and Experience.Cambridge University Press.
Hooft, G. 't. 2007. The free-will postulate in quantum mechanics. quant-ph/0701097.
Hutter, M. 2007. On universal prediction and Bayesian confirmation.Theor. Comput. Sci., 384(1), 33–48. arXiv:0709.1516.Google Scholar
Inwagen, P. van. 1983. An Essay on Free Will.Oxford University Press.
Knight, F. H. 2010. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit.Nabu Press. First published 1921.
Koch, C. 2012. Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist.MIT Press.
Kochen, S., and Specker, S. 1967. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics.J. of Math. and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. 1998. The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge.
Levy, S. 1992. Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier Where Computers Meet Biology. Vintage.
Li, M., and Vitányi, P. M. B. 2008. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications (3rd ed.). First edition published in 1993. Springer.
Libet, B. W. 1999. Do we have free will?J. Consciousness Studies, 47–57.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. 2002. Computational capacity of the universe.Phys. Rev. Lett., 88. quantph/0110141.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. 2012. A Turing test for free will.Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A, 370, 3597–3610.Google Scholar
Lucas, J. R. 1961. Minds, machines, and Gödel.Philosophy, 36, 112–127.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. M. 1960. On the logical indeterminacy of a free choice.Mind, LXIX(273), 31–40.Google Scholar
Markov, A. 1958. Unsolvability of the problem of homeomorphy. Pages 300–306 of: Proc. Int. Cong. Math., Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Marshall, W., Simon, C., Penrose, R., and Bouwmeester, D. 2003. Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror.Phys. Rev. Lett., 91(130401). quant-ph/0210001.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 2000. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds In A Material World.Basic Books.
Morris, S. 1995. The Common Prior Assumption in economic theory.Econ. and Phil., 11, 227–253.Google Scholar
Neal, R. M. 2006. Puzzles of anthropic reasoning resolved using full non-indexical conditioning. Tech. rept. 0607. Dept. of Statistics, University of Toronto.www.cs.toronto.edu/˜radford/anth.abstract.html.
Nozick, R. 1969. Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice. pp. 114–115 of: Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel.Synthese Library.
Penrose, R. 1989. The Emperor's New Mind.Oxford.
Penrose, R. 1996. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness.Oxford.
Penrose, R. 2007. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage.
Perlmutter, S. and 31 others (Supernova Cosmology Project). 1999. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. Astrophys. J., 517(2), 565–586. astroph/ 9812133.Google Scholar
Pironio, S., Acín, A., Massar, S., de la Giroday, A. Boyer, Matsukevich, D. N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T. A., and Monroe, C. 2010. Random numbers certified by Bell's theorem. Nature, 464, 1021–1024. arXiv:0911.3427.Google Scholar
Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., and Rudolph, T. 2012. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8, 475–478. arXiv:1111.3328.Google Scholar
Russell, S., and Norvig, P. 2009. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall. First published 1995.
Ryle, G. 2008. The Concept of Mind. Kessinger Publishing. First published 1949.
Satinover, J. 2001. The Quantum Brain. Wiley.
Savage, L. J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley.
Schmidhuber, J. 1997. A computer scientist's view of life, the universe, and everything. pp. 201–208 of: Foundations of Computer Science: Potential – Theory – Cognition. Springer.
Searle, J. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind. MIT Press.
Shafer, G. 1976. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press.
Shieber, S. M. (ed.). 2004. The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior as the Hallmark of Intelligence. Bradford Books.
Sompolinsky, H. 2005. A scientific perspective on human choice. In: Shatz, D., and Berger, Y. (eds.), Judaism, Science, and Moral Responsibility. Rowman and Littlefield.
Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., and Haynes, J.-D. 2008. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neurosci., 11, 543–545.Google Scholar
Spekkens, R. W. 2007. In defense of the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory. Phys. Rev. A, 75(032110). quant-ph/0401052.Google Scholar
Stenger, V. J. 2009. Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness. Prometheus Books.
Stoica, C. 2008. Flowing with a frozen river. Runner-up in FQXi essay contest on The Nature of Time. fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Stoica flowzen time 2.pdf.
Stoica, C. 2012. Modern physics, determinism and free-will. Noema, XI. www.noema.crifst.ro/doc/2012 5 01.pdf.Google Scholar
Taleb, N. N. 2010. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. 2nd edn. Random House. First published 2007.
Tegmark, M. 1999. The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys. Rev. E, 61, 4194–4206.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.Google Scholar
Vazirani, U., and Vidick, T. 2012. Certifiable quantum dice – or, true random number generation secure against quantum adversaries. pp. 61–76 of: Proc. ACM STOC. arXiv:1111.6054.
von Neumann, J. von. 1932. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer. English translation (1955) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press.
Wiesner, S. 1983. Conjugate coding. SIGACT News, 15(1), 78–88. Original manuscript written circa 1970.
Wigner, E. P. 1962. Remarks on the mind–body problem. In: Good, I. J. (ed.), The Scientist Speculates. Heinemann, London.
Wolfram, S. 2002. A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×