06-27-2013, 01:41 PM
Some thoughts here:
First, the 10^27 bps number is impressive but I don't think it violates anything physics wise because basically what is being described is parallel processing. You could take a 1 bit/sec processor and if you ran 10^27 of them you'd have 10^27 bit/sec processing going on. In practice it appears that in terms of actual bit flipping or 'speed' its only operating at about 10 gigahertz. With the right programming you can take advantage of that 10e27 bps, true, but I don't think you're dealing with physics issues in the same way as you do with an Ultimate Chip (hope that makes sense).
Second, Johnny, you start out talking in terms of bits/sec, but then switch to operations/sec. Isn't this comparing apples and oranges? I would assume it takes more than one bit to perform even the simplest operation. So that's going to reduce that impressive number a good bit (ha! a pun). Still impressive, but let's get our terms straight. We've run into this issue in past discussions.
It seems to me that comparing the Ultimate Chip and this device is also somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. The UC is intended to operate at 'room temperature' pretty much while this tech is described as operating at cryogenic temps from what I can gather (haven't had time to read the whole article, sorry). And I also recall Adam stating when the UC was first introduced that it is the best possible within the temp range described and using phonons since they are most efficient in these conditions. That certainly leaves the door open to many other devices that might operate under very different conditions. A super-cooled or actively cooled UC might be much more powerful, although such hasn't been described yet.
To date, we do NOT have reversible computing really addressed in the setting, mainly because we haven't been able to find much solid info on it. If it can be made to work it may have a major impact on computation. That said, one thing I seem to recall is that it is overall somewhat slowed down by the need to perform all its calculations in reverse in order to 'cancel out' the entropy or energy dissipation from doing them initially. So this may also slow things down overall a bit. Although maybe this tech gets around that somehow.
Re brain - current OA convention is that a human brain does about 1e18 bps in processing, which puts it about 1000x above the number that was mainly being thrown around for this when we created the brain size articles and such. Given how little we know about the brain, including how optimized it is to do whatever its doing, this number seems as reasonable as any other to me. I see no reason to change it.
Ok, all I've got for now. Need to get to bed.
Thanks!
Todd
First, the 10^27 bps number is impressive but I don't think it violates anything physics wise because basically what is being described is parallel processing. You could take a 1 bit/sec processor and if you ran 10^27 of them you'd have 10^27 bit/sec processing going on. In practice it appears that in terms of actual bit flipping or 'speed' its only operating at about 10 gigahertz. With the right programming you can take advantage of that 10e27 bps, true, but I don't think you're dealing with physics issues in the same way as you do with an Ultimate Chip (hope that makes sense).
Second, Johnny, you start out talking in terms of bits/sec, but then switch to operations/sec. Isn't this comparing apples and oranges? I would assume it takes more than one bit to perform even the simplest operation. So that's going to reduce that impressive number a good bit (ha! a pun). Still impressive, but let's get our terms straight. We've run into this issue in past discussions.
It seems to me that comparing the Ultimate Chip and this device is also somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. The UC is intended to operate at 'room temperature' pretty much while this tech is described as operating at cryogenic temps from what I can gather (haven't had time to read the whole article, sorry). And I also recall Adam stating when the UC was first introduced that it is the best possible within the temp range described and using phonons since they are most efficient in these conditions. That certainly leaves the door open to many other devices that might operate under very different conditions. A super-cooled or actively cooled UC might be much more powerful, although such hasn't been described yet.
To date, we do NOT have reversible computing really addressed in the setting, mainly because we haven't been able to find much solid info on it. If it can be made to work it may have a major impact on computation. That said, one thing I seem to recall is that it is overall somewhat slowed down by the need to perform all its calculations in reverse in order to 'cancel out' the entropy or energy dissipation from doing them initially. So this may also slow things down overall a bit. Although maybe this tech gets around that somehow.
Re brain - current OA convention is that a human brain does about 1e18 bps in processing, which puts it about 1000x above the number that was mainly being thrown around for this when we created the brain size articles and such. Given how little we know about the brain, including how optimized it is to do whatever its doing, this number seems as reasonable as any other to me. I see no reason to change it.
Ok, all I've got for now. Need to get to bed.
Thanks!
Todd