Philosophical Aspects of Quantum Information Theory

Quantum information theory represents a rich subject of discussion for those interested in the philosphical and foundational issues surrounding quantum mechanics for a simple reason: one can cast its central concerns in terms of a long-familiar question: How does the quantum world differ from the classical one? Moreover, deployment of the concepts of information and computation in novel contexts hints at new (or better) means of understanding quantum mechanics, and perhaps even invites re-assessment of traditional material conceptions of the basic nature of the physical world. In this paper I review some of these philosophical aspects of quantum information theory, begining with an elementary survey of the theory, seeking to highlight some of the principles and heuristics involved. We move on to a discussion of the nature and definition of quantum information and deploy the findings in discussing the puzzles surrounding teleportation. The final two sections discuss, respectively, what one might learn from the development of quantum computation (both about the nature of quantum systems and about the nature of computation) and consider the impact of quantum information theory on the traditional foundational questions of quantum mechanics (treating of the views of Zeilinger, Bub and Fuchs, amongst others).Comment: LaTeX; 55pp; 3 figs. Forthcoming in Rickles (ed.) The Ashgate Companion to the New Philosophy of Physic

The Quantum Frontier

The success of the abstract model of computation, in terms of bits, logical operations, programming language constructs, and the like, makes it easy to forget that computation is a physical process. Our cherished notions of computation and information are grounded in classical mechanics, but the physics underlying our world is quantum. In the early 80s researchers began to ask how computation would change if we adopted a quantum mechanical, instead of a classical mechanical, view of computation. Slowly, a new picture of computation arose, one that gave rise to a variety of faster algorithms, novel cryptographic mechanisms, and alternative methods of communication. Small quantum information processing devices have been built, and efforts are underway to build larger ones. Even apart from the existence of these devices, the quantum view on information processing has provided significant insight into the nature of computation and information, and a deeper understanding of the physics of our universe and its connections with computation. We start by describing aspects of quantum mechanics that are at the heart of a quantum view of information processing. We give our own idiosyncratic view of a number of these topics in the hopes of correcting common misconceptions and highlighting aspects that are often overlooked. A number of the phenomena described were initially viewed as oddities of quantum mechanics. It was quantum information processing, first quantum cryptography and then, more dramatically, quantum computing, that turned the tables and showed that these oddities could be put to practical effect. It is these application we describe next. We conclude with a section describing some of the many questions left for future work, especially the mysteries surrounding where the power of quantum information ultimately comes from.Comment: Invited book chapter for Computation for Humanity - Information Technology to Advance Society to be published by CRC Press. Concepts clarified and style made more uniform in version 2. Many thanks to the referees for their suggestions for improvement

TAPAS : tricks to accelerate (encrypted) prediction as a service

Machine learning methods are widely used for a variety of prediction problems. Prediction as a service is a paradigm in which service providers with technological expertise and computational resources may perform predictions for clients. However, data privacy severely restricts the applicability of such services, unless measures to keep client data private (even from the service provider) are designed. Equally important is to minimize the nature of computation and amount of communication required between client and server. Fully homomorphic encryption offers a way out, whereby clients may encrypt their data, and on which the server may perform arithmetic computations. The one drawback of using fully homomorphic encryption is the amount of time required to evaluate large machine learning models on encrypted data. We combine several ideas from the machine learning literature, particularly work on quantization and sparsification of neural networks, together with algorithmic tools to speed-up and parallelize computation using encrypted data

Wolpert, Chaitin and Wittgenstein on impossibility, incompleteness, the liar paradox, theism, the limits of computation, a non-quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and the universe as computer—the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory (revised 2019)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv dot org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the computation, and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility, incompleteness, the limits of computation, and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things, a non- quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. There are obvious connections to the classic work of Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov and Wittgenstein and to the notion that no program (and thus no device) can generate a sequence (or device) with greater complexity than it possesses. One might say this body of work implies atheism since there cannot be any entity more complex than the physical universe and from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint, ‘more complex’ is meaningless (has no conditions of satisfaction, i.e., truth-maker or test). Even a ‘God’ (i.e., a ‘device’with limitless time/space and energy) cannot determine whether a given ‘number’ is ‘random’, nor find a certain way to show that a given ‘formula’, ‘theorem’ or ‘sentence’ or ‘device’ (all these being complex language games) is part of a particular ‘system’. Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019