• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 1
I, Quantum Robot
 
P. A. ZizziDipartimento di Matematica Pura ed ApplicataVia Trieste, 63, 35121 Padova, Italyzizzi@math.unipd.it 
Abstract
Quantum robots, defined as mobile quantum systems with an on-board quantum computer and anyneeded ancillary systems, interact with other quantum systems which are part of the environment.The logic which describes quantum robots is not orthodox quantum logic, but a deductive calculuswhich reproduces the quantum tasks (computational processes, and actions) taking into accountquantum superposition and quantum entanglement. The logical object-language cannot be viewedas the “reflection” of the usual classical metalanguage: a quantum metalanguage is needed.Quantum robots can, in principle, become aware of the environment, take decisions, and makeexperiments. In principle, quantum robots can become intelligent machines. In this case, it isbelieved they might learn much faster than classical machines, because of quantum speed-up.Then, quantum robots, once they will be built, might result to be those hyper-intelligent machineswhich will lead to the so-called technological singularity. Such a singularity might be dangerous if quantum robots become self-aware and take advantage on humans. To avoid such a problem, itwould be useful to adopt a quantum metalanguage to control quantum robots in a dialectic way, thatis, without lowering their capabilities by quantum measurements. A physical implementation of aquantum metalanguage might be the use of coherent states in brain signals. In this way the externalagent virtually acts as he was in a composite quantum system together with the quantum robot. Thisis the quantum version of non-invasive BCI (Brain-Computer Interface). In this case the observercan be considered internal by the use of a quantum metalanguage, resulting in an obviouslyconscious Quantum Brain-Computer.
 
 2
1. Introduction
Quantum robots were first introduced by Benioff [1]. The original aim was to give a completevalidation of quantum mechanics, by means of quantum systems, which, (like quantum robots)might carry out both theoretical calculations (quantum computing) and experiments.A quantum robot can, in principle, perform a self-measurement: computational steps looked fromthe robot’s point of view are quantum measurements of its own state. This was already recognizedby Benioff, who also pointed out the difficulty of self-reference arising in this case. This in factrequires a new, quantum approach [2] to G
ö
del’s incompleteness theorem.Benioff defined a quantum robot as a mobile system which has a quantum computer on board, andany needed ancillary systems.The quantum robot moves in and interacts with the environment of a quantum system.Environments are taken to be systems in discrete space lattices for simplicity. The quantumcomputer on board can be described by a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [3], quantum networks[4], and quantum cellular automata (QCA) [5].The dynamics of a quantum robot and its interactions with the environment is described in terms of 
tasks
. A task for a quantum robot is equivalent to a quantum function for a quantum computer. Eachtask consists of a sequence of computation and action phases. The computational phase is aimed todetermine what action (or move) the quantum robot should make.The quantum robots originally discussed by Benioff have no awareness of their environment, anddo not make decisions or measurements. However, in the future it might be that quantum robots willbe aware of the environment, and could perform experiments.Not only, they might even become self-aware, conscious, and have “free will”. This will be the signthat the technological singularity described in [6] has been reached. Such a singularity might bevery dangerous if quantum robots decide to act against human beings and take advantage on them.A possible solution is considered in this paper: humans should adopt a quantum metalanguage tocontrol quantum robots. A quantum metalanguage is a metalanguage which reflects properly into aquantum object-language, that is, in the logic of quantum computers. The reflection principlebetween (classical) metalanguage and object language was introduced in [7] and then extended tothe quantum case in [8].
2. The logic of a quantum robot
In [9], unitary transformations were given the status of generalized quantum measurements [10]. Inthis way, quantum logic gates, which perform quantum computation, can also be reinterpreted asinternal, reversible generalized quantum measurements if an internal observer is allowed. Theinternal observer can be interpreted in (at least) four different ways:i)
 
An observer in a quantum space which is in a one-to-one correspondence with the statespace of the quantum system [11]. Of course, this view is possible only in theframework of (loop) quantum gravity [12].ii)
 
An observer in a classical space, who is, however, capable to communicate with thelogic of the quantum computer by means of a quantum metalanguage [8], which is asuitable quantum control.iii)
 
The quantum robot. Of course, the quantum robot is able to look at its own computationvia internal measurements (unitary transformations) without destroying quantumsuperposition.Also, the quantum robot can perform quantum measurements on other quantum systems,comprising other quantum computers. From outside, the quantum robots performing measurementson other quantum systems of the environment, is viewed, by the external observer, as a generalizedquantum measurement.iv)
 
A human being with a QCA implanted in his brain that is, a quantum computingcybernetic organism (Quantum-Computing Cyborg). However, this possibility appears,
 
 3at present, very difficult to realize, owing to strong constraints (temperatures, absence of impurities, etc.), actually needed to build a QCA.The quantum logics of cases i) iii) and iv) are reproducible in terms of networks of quantum logicgates, and measurements are all internal, and are described by unitary operators or at least bygeneralized measurements in the case of a quantum robot performing an experiment, a particularsubcase of case iii). Instead, case ii) needs a quantum metalanguage. The premises of the logicalcalculus are the assertions of the quantum metalanguage, which, hopefully, can be physicallyimplemented by coherent state inputs from brain signals, as we will show in the next section.We are looking for the most adequate logic for a quantum robot. To this aim, we will remind somenotions about logical propositions and assertions in orthodox quantum logic [13], and illustrate whythey do not fit the quantum computational case.In orthodox quantum logic a proposition is a projector. In two-dimensional complex Hilbert space,there are two projectors,
0
P
and
1
P
. More precisely, the two atomic propositions
0
 p
and
1
 p
are, inthe Hilbert interpretation
 H 
:
00
P p
 H 
,
11
P p
 H 
(2.1)The eigenvectors of 
0
P
and
1
P
are
0
and
1
respectively, with real eigenvalue 1:
00
0
P
,
11
1
P
.Then, the states
0
and
1
can be taken as the representative of the propositions
0
 p
and
1
 p
assuch propositions are asserted (true) at those states.The deductive logical calculus of quantum computers cannot be developed in the framework of orthodox quantum logic. In fact, a quantum computer is not just a quantum system, but a quantumsystem which computes, and the logical calculus should reproduce the quantum computationalprocess. A quantum robot is even more complex: it is a quantum system, which can performmeasurements, and it is also a quantum computer which computes its own moves. The wholesystem can, in turn, be simulated by another quantum computer. In the internal logic of a quantumcomputer (or of a quantum robot) the syntax and the semantics are strictly inter-twined, which leadsto a kind of self-reference. However, the latter is a problem only within a classical metalanguage; inthe case of a quantum metalanguage, self-reference can be formalized as a metatheorem [14].Orthodox quantum logic can describe only projective measurements, which have the effect of destroying quantum superposition, stop the quantum computational process, and loose information.Orthodox quantum logic is then the antithesis of quantum information (where assertions should bebearers of quantum information) and quantum computation (sequent calculus should reproduce thecomputational process, instead of stopping it). Moreover, orthodox quantum logic is structural:there are the two structural rules of contraction and weakening which disagree [15] with the two no-go theorems of quantum computing, namely the no-cloning [16] and the no-erase [17] theorems,respectively.We will briefly give the definitions of sequent and assertions, and metalanguage, which are veryimportant for what follows.The following notation will be used:The symbol
known as the turnstile separates the
assumptions
on the left from the
 propositions
 on the right.
 A
and
 B
denote formulae of first-order predicate logic (one may also restrict this to propositionallogic).
Γ
,
Δ
,
Σ
, and
Π
are finite (possibly empty) sequences of formulae, called contexts.When on the
left 
of the , the sequence of formulas is considered
conjunctively
(all assumed to holdat the same time), while on the
right 
of the , the sequence of formulas is considered
disjunctively
 (at least one of the formulas must hold for any assignment of variables).We say that the finite list
Δ
of assertions Bj (j =1,2,….k)
 follows from
a finite list
Γ
of assertionsAi (i=1,2….n) (or equivalently
Γ
 
 yields
 
Δ
) and write:
. Where
(“yields” or “therefore”) is
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...