devodo

Could you accurately simulate the device on a computer precisely following the rules of the challenge? So that means the devices are isolated and therefore no global state is allowed. The devices are not aware of each others state nor results. You are only allowed to use local state to simulate the entangled particle. You can use whatever local hidden variables you want as long as it doesn't break the global state rule.

The device cannot be accurately simulated using a classical computer because it relies on quantum entanglement that has no counterpart in classical physics. The results cannot be simulated even if hidden local variables are used.

The only way to simulate accurately on a classical computer is to use global state but this goes against the instruction that the devices must be isolated from each other.

> This is immaterial, however. It is a well known fact that BQP is in PSPACE and Clifford circuits (a subclass of quantum circuits) can not only be simulated classically, but done so efficiently. It is not controversial.

Yes, BQP problems are solvable and a "subclass" of quantum circuits can be simulated efficiently. But the fact is there are known aspects of reality that cannot be simulated on a classical computer.

The paper is saying that attempting to simulate the device in code is a valuable lesson to students for precisely the reason that it cannot be done (correctly), thereby illustrating the limits of classical computation.

> In the current paper, we make use of the recently published work in quantum information theory by Candela to have students write code to simulate the operation of the device in that article. Analysis of the device has significant pedagogical value—a fact recognized by Feynman—and simulation of its operation provides students a unique window into quantum mechanics without prior knowledge of the theory.

This is not true. For example, Mermin's device cannot be done using classical physics regardless of running time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermin%27s_device

> (Pro-strong-AI)... This is basically a disbelief in the ability of physics to correctly describe what happens in the world — a well-established philosophical position. Are you giving up on physics?

This is a very strong argument. Certainly all the ingredients to replicate a mind must exist within our physical reality.

But does an algorithm running on a computer have access to all the physics required?

For example, there are known physical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement, that are not possible to emulate with classical physics. How do we know our brains are not exploiting these, and possibly even yet unknown, physical phenomena?

An algorithm running on a classical computer is executing in a very different environment than a brain that is directly part of physical reality.

If you're looking for alternatives to Moq please check out DivertR, a mocking framework I have created https://github.com/devodo/DivertR