NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality

Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.Comment: 23 pages, minor correction

The quantum measurement problem and physical reality: a computation theoretic perspective

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.Comment: Talk presented at "Quantum Computing: Back Action 2006", IIT Kanpur, India, March 200

Representation reduction and solution space contraction in quasi-exactly solvable systems

In quasi-exactly solvable problems partial analytic solution (energy spectrum and associated wavefunctions) are obtained if some potential parameters are assigned specific values. We introduce a new class in which exact solutions are obtained at a given energy for a special set of values of the potential parameters. To obtain a larger solution space one varies the energy over a discrete set (the spectrum). A unified treatment that includes the standard as well as the new class of quasi-exactly solvable problems is presented and few examples (some of which are new) are given. The solution space is spanned by discrete square integrable basis functions in which the matrix representation of the Hamiltonian is tridiagonal. Imposing quasi-exact solvability constraints result in a complete reduction of the representation into the direct sum of a finite and infinite component. The finite is real and exactly solvable, whereas the infinite is complex and associated with zero norm states. Consequently, the whole physical space contracts to a finite dimensional subspace with normalizable states.Comment: 25 pages, 4 figures (2 in color

Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

One might think that, once we know something is computable, how efficiently it can be computed is a practical question with little further philosophical importance. In this essay, I offer a detailed case that one would be wrong. In particular, I argue that computational complexity theory---the field that studies the resources (such as time, space, and randomness) needed to solve computational problems---leads to new perspectives on the nature of mathematical knowledge, the strong AI debate, computationalism, the problem of logical omniscience, Hume's problem of induction, Goodman's grue riddle, the foundations of quantum mechanics, economic rationality, closed timelike curves, and several other topics of philosophical interest. I end by discussing aspects of complexity theory itself that could benefit from philosophical analysis.Comment: 58 pages, to appear in "Computability: G\"odel, Turing, Church, and beyond," MIT Press, 2012. Some minor clarifications and corrections; new references adde

Entanglement, intractability and no-signaling

We consider the problem of deriving the no-signaling condition from the assumption that, as seen from a complexity theoretic perspective, the universe is not an exponential place. A fact that disallows such a derivation is the existence of {\em polynomial superluminal} gates, hypothetical primitive operations that enable superluminal signaling but not the efficient solution of intractable problems. It therefore follows, if this assumption is a basic principle of physics, either that it must be supplemented with additional assumptions to prohibit such gates, or, improbably, that no-signaling is not a universal condition. Yet, a gate of this kind is possibly implicit, though not recognized as such, in a decade-old quantum optical experiment involving position-momentum entangled photons. Here we describe a feasible modified version of the experiment that appears to explicitly demonstrate the action of this gate. Some obvious counter-claims are shown to be invalid. We believe that the unexpected possibility of polynomial superluminal operations arises because some practically measured quantum optical quantities are not describable as standard quantum mechanical observables.Comment: 17 pages, 2 figures (REVTeX 4