> According to my understanding of common scientific knowledge, an upper size limit for quantum >effects is neither known nor expected.
Indeed, it seems to be the case. You may want to read the articles below for more details
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/quantum-entanglement-demonstrated-level-visible-naked-eye
https://theconversation.com/experiment-shows-einsteins-quantum-spooky-action-approaches-the-human-scale-95372
OTOH, I am still not sure if it somehow implies the possibility of superluminal communication
(unlike the example below)
PS: Peter, this is your house. I don’t want to offend. Please tell me to stop if you consider
that it is time to stop and this is leading too far away off topic for too many consecutive posts.
Well, I can assure you that, no matter how it all goes, the “end recipient” on the receiving end (pun intended) of "The Hanging Judge"s whip had been appointed before you even had a chance to make your very first post on this thread, effectively taking it into a “funny” direction. This is another example of quantum-level affects taking place in the macroscopic world…
Anton Bassov
I apologize for starting this digression, but I actually think the
discussion is interesting and that qe is both fascinating and
mind-boggling. You really have to rethink your expectations, classic
physics is an emergent property of quantum physics at a macro scale.
Mark Roddy
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:17 AM, xxxxx@hotmail.com <
xxxxx@lists.osr.com> wrote:
> According to my understanding of common scientific knowledge, an upper
size limit for quantum >effects is neither known nor expected.
Indeed, it seems to be the case. You may want to read the articles below
for more details
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/
stories/quantum-entanglement-demonstrated-level-visible-naked-eye
https://theconversation.com/experiment-shows-einsteins-
quantum-spooky-action-approaches-the-human-scale-95372
OTOH, I am still not sure if it somehow implies the possibility of
superluminal communication
(unlike the example below)
> PS: Peter, this is your house. I don’t want to offend. Please tell me to
stop if you consider
> that it is time to stop and this is leading too far away off topic for
too many consecutive posts.
Well, I can assure you that, no matter how it all goes, the “end
recipient” on the receiving end (pun intended) of "The Hanging Judge"s whip
had been appointed before you even had a chance to make your very first
post on this thread, effectively taking it into a “funny” direction. This
is another example of quantum-level affects taking place in the macroscopic
world…
Anton Bassov
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
Visit the list online at: http:> showlists.cfm?list=ntdev>
>
> MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
> software drivers!
> Details at http:
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at <
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer>
></http:></http:>
I haven’t seen any STOP signal yet. Thus just one more post:
The real fascinating mind-boggling actually starts when thinking just one step beyond the scope of what is currently reachable or provable by contemporary science…
…according to scientific believe, all the universe was in one point at the time of the Big Bang. Thus “it may be possible” that the whole universe is entangled. Thus things happening here on earth may possibly be influenced by things happening somewhere else in the universe, in a galaxy far, far away…
Marcel Ruedinger
datronicsoft
I don’t know if it can get explained somehow by the quantum mechanics effects, but I have personally observed “a strange phenomenon” - almost the very same moment this thread took an “unexpected” direction Yahoo news started, once in a sudden, spitting out articles about the experiments that claim to confirm the most “unconventional” interpretations of quantum mechanics, and doing so at unprecedented rate. Here is one more link
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/parallel-worlds-exist-and-interact-with-our-world-say
If it is still not enough, it started providing “unconventional” news concerning the cosmology as well
https://www.space.com/40422-are-white-holes-dark-matter.html
According to this article, so-called “white holes” may actually predate the Big Bang
…according to scientific believe, all the universe was in one point at the time of the Big Bang.
Taking into consideration the above links, the very first questions that get into my head are
-
Which particular universe are we speaking about - as we can see, there are many of them, and they even are claimed to interact with one another
-
Did the Big Bang start them all in one go, or it applies only to our particular universe?
-
How do white holes that predate the Big Bang map into the whole picture?
Anton Bassov
> effectively turning this thread into, probably, the most
ridiculous one in NTDEV’s entire history.
But Mr. Bassov, this way it is still better than the other alternative (discussion of SEH and stack unwinding at high IRQLs…)
The example of a CPU that can dynamically self-reconfigure its own features
without resetting itself
falls in the same class of"solutions" for the reason I had earlier explained.
Certainly, if you remove “without resetting itself” part, the whole thing, once
in a sudden, becomes perfectly feasible and reasonable.
If the baddest problem case here is live migration of VMs to a different CPU - this is now mitigated by containers, AFAIK. Workloads are migrated by applications in containers more often than entire VMs, and decent applications should not depend on low-level CPU details.
Virtual or physical machines (with the OS, drivers and so on) typically are started in a normal way, then containers with apps are migrated among them. Then, no problem.
Regards,
– pa
P.S. and you can now enjoy these quantum effects in the comfort of Visual Studio 
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/An-Introduction-To-Quantum-62671688
> If the baddest problem case here is live migration of VMs to a different CPU - this
is now mitigated by containers, AFAIK. Workloads are migrated by applications
in containers more often than entire VMs, and decent applications should not
depend on low-level CPU details.
Fair enough - the instructions that we were speaking about tend to be privileged ones, and,hence,
are unavailable to the userland apps anyway…
BTW, once we started speaking about the containers, the very first thing that gets into my head is the thread (unfortunately, I cannot immediately find it) where our “Windows fanboy” (a.k.a.Max) was claiming that lightweight virtualisation mechanisms (i.e. jails, zones and containers under respectively FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux) were totally pointless, and that the only virtualisation mechanism that mattered was a full-blown machine virtualisation. However, as we can see, in actuality, light-weight virtualisation turned into one of the hottest trends, contrary to his beliefs…
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/An-Introduction-To-Quantum-62671688
OMG - as it turns out, the only thing that I was doing on this thread was promoting a new MSFT technology…
Anton Bassov
Unsupported assertion here. As measured by, what exactly?
It would seem to me that VMotion and Veeam Quick Migration are still quite popular.
Not that it matters. Never mind, the horse is dead.
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers
Just seen this thread and wanted to share my understanding. I hope members of the forum can accept this post. The points mentioned below were correct and surprisingly so precise touching the limits of world experienced:
effectively stripping the original statement of its
actual meaning and assigning a totally different one to it
I would summarize the stuff as ‘context’. So we need to interpret a word in its context.
give different
interpretations of exactly the same binary instruction (i.e. before and after
self-reconfiguration)
Sir, as we can see it is due to context. It is possible in technology … if you see elisp where the self modifying characteristics of a programming language is achieved more here. Actually whole philosophy of current thinking about how we are programmed to think has to change in my view since the fundamentals of John Von Neumann architecture of what is separation of memory and processing and also the halting problem are not understood or taught properly. Very few indeed even are aware of Alan Turing Vs John Van Neumann conflict and the implications down to our day to day decisions down to things like from porting ipv4 to ipv6 to caching to cracking bitcoin to thinking beyond AI. The reason I have mentioned all this is to highlight the importance of different way of thinking.
There are other things in this thread like going back in time which reminded me 12th chapter in “Tao of Physics” (it is possible) and same macroscopic object appearing at different places (not just object but living being but I would stop here lest I do not get idea whether to proceed or not in this way here). Thanks.
> It is possible in technology … if you see elisp where the self modifying characteristics
of a programming language is achieved more here.
Don’t forget that LISP is a high-level language that heavily depends upon its runtime library.
It “self-modifying” features are due to the fact that it does not make any distinction between the code and the data, because “everything is a list” , from its perspective. Therefore, if a function returns a list that subsequently gets executed, the whole thing starts looking as if a LISP program is capable of writing its own code. However, it cannot rewrite its own runtime, can it. Therefore, interpretation of its “instructions” does not change in any possible way.
In fact, the same thing is possible at the level of assembly language as well. Although you would not normally expect to encounter something like that at the time when the system is up and running, this is an absolutely standard procedure at the early stages of the boot process when a bootloader loads the code into memory, modifies certain parts (normally the ones that deal with offsets) of it, and then jumps to modified code.
However,how on Earth all the above may be possibly related to CPU that is capable of dynamically reconfiguring itself??? Look - dynamic hardware reconfiguration is a basically different thing that involves modifying the logic cells. Basically, you can think of a logic cell as of a cell with, say, 6 inputs that is configured to produce either 0 or 1 for each of 64 possible combinations of inputs.
Therefore, by reconfiguring these cells you are capable of changing ABSOLUTELY everything
about the target hardware. Assuming that the target hardware implements an instruction set, how can you possibly reconfigure it without upsetting the software that it executes???
Anton Bassov
In principle, I can give simple example of “repne scasb”. It is a single instruction which satisfies the definition of N possible inputs and different output even when the input is same. But the direction of search changes (hardware is reconfigured in a way here) depending on the context set. I would like to remember transmeta approach to hardware and ways to reconfigure processors. I do not know details but I believe their IP has answer.
Just seen this thread and wanted to share my understanding.
In principle, I can give simple example of “repne scasb”. It is a single instruction which satisfies the definition of N possible inputs and different output even when the input is same. But the direction of search changes (hardware is reconfigured in a way here) depending on the context set.
Am I the only one who finds the above combination…ugh,“amusing”, so to say…
I would like to remember transmeta approach to hardware and ways to reconfigure processors.
AFAIK, they relied upon translating x86 instructions to their proprietary IS. As long as you don’t expose your actual IS to the software that you run you may, indeed, change certain implementation details transparently to the software that you run, at least in theory.However, this is
NOT what we are speaking about here,don’t you think…
Anton Bassov